7  o  .  /  o ,  :2. 


iFrnm  tl|?  Uibrarg  of 

Ipquealti^li  ho  Ijtm  to 

tlyp  ICtbrary  of 

Prtnr^ton  Slipologtral  S>?mtttar|r 


5^^ 


V. 


E 


SYSTExMATI 


THEOLOGY. 


CHARLES   HODGE,  D.  D., 

FEiJFKSS.  IK    IN   Tllli   TIIK01.0GICAI<   SKMINAUY,    I'UINCETON,    NKW    JERSEY 


VOL.  IIL 


NEW     YORK: 
BCRIB.NER,   ARMSTRONG,   AND   CO. 

SUCCESSORS  TO 

CHARLES  S0RI15NER  AND  CO. 

LONDON  >ND  BniNBURGH:  T.  NELSON  AND  S0N3. 

1874. 


Entered  accoixling  to  act  of  Conf^re.-^.s,  in  the  year  18751,  cy 

SCKIBNEK,    AiaiSTKONG,    AM)    Co.MFANY, 

ia  the  Ortice  of  the  Librarian  of  C  n^ress  at  Wasiiinf^toQ. 


RIVERSIDE,   CAMRRIUOB  . 

IltREOTYPED     AND     I'ltlNicDii 
H.    0.    UOUUHION    AXD   OllMPANK. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  THIRD  VOLUJIE. 


PART    III.     {Continued.) 
CHAPTER  XV. 

REGENERATION. 

PAOI 

§  1.  Usage  of  the  word  Regeneration 3 

§  2.  Nature  of  Regeneration  .........  5 

Not  a  Change  in  the  Substance  of  the  Soul.  —  Not  an  Act  of  the 
Soul.  —  Doctor  Emmon's  Doctrine.  —  Professor  Fiuney's  Doc- 
trine. —  Doctor  Nathaniel  Taylor's  View.  —  Not  a  Change  in 
any  one  Faculty.  —  Not  merely  Illumination.  —  Not  a  Change  of 
.  ,.c  '  .-*the  Higher  Powers  of  the  Soul  exclusively.  —  Llodern  Specula- 
tive Views.  —  Ebrard's  Doctrine.  —  Delitzsch's  Doctrine  .  .  25 
Doctrine  of  the  Latin  Church  ■ '.         .         .         .         .         .         .         27 

Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England 28 

§  3.  The  Evangelical  Doctrine 29 

Exposition  of  the  Doctrine       ........     30 

An  Act  of  Divine  Power 31 

In  the  Subjective  Sense  of  the  Word  not  an  Act    .         .         .         .32 

It  is  a  New_Pi-inciple  of  Life.  —  A  New  Bu-th.  —  A  New  Heart.  — 
The  whole  Soul  the  Subject  of  it         .         .         .         .         .         .36 

§  4.  Objections  to  the  Evangelical  Doctrine 37 

CHAPTER  XVI. 


§  L  Preliminary  Remarks  ..........     41 

§  2.  Psychological  Nature  of  Faith 42 

Primary  Idea  of  Faith  is  Trust.  —  More  limited  Sense  of  the  ^Vord 
Definitions  of  Faith  founded  on  its  Subjective  Nature,  — 

First,  a  Degree  of  Conviction  less  than  Ivnowledge,  but  stronger 
than  Opinion    ..........     46 

Second,  a  Conviction  determined  by  the  Will  ...         49 

Definition  founded  on  the  Objects  of  Faith.  —  Conviction  of  the 
Truth  of  Things  not  seen     ........     53 

Definitions  founded  on  the  Kind  of  Evidence  on  which  the  Convic- 
tion rests,  — 
First,  a  Conviction  founded  on  Feeling        .         .         .         .         .57 

Second,  a  Conviction  founded  on  Testimony    ....  60 


iv  CONTENTS   OF  THE  THIRD  VOLUME. 

PAoa 

§  3.  Different  Kinds  of  Faith 67 

§  4.  Relation  of  Faith  and  Knowledge 75 

§  5.  Relation  of  Faith  and  FeeUng 88 

§  6.  Relation  of  Faith  and  Love '    .        .         .  93 

§  7.  Object  of  Saving  Faith 95 

§  8.  EfPects  of  Faith 104 

Assurance        ...........  106 

Certainty  of  Salvation 110 


9 


CHAPTER  XVn. 

JUSTIFICATION. 


§  1.  Symbolical  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 114 

§2.  Justification  a  forensic  Act 118 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine 120 

Calvin's  Doctrine  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .133 

§3.  Works  not  the  Ground  of  Justification 134 

Romish  Doctrine.  —  Remonstrant  Doctrine.  —  Protestant  Doctrine   13  7 
§4.  The  Righteousness  of  Christ  the  Ground  of  Justification  .         .         .141 

§  5.  Imputation  of  Righteousness 144 

§  6.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Imputation  .         .         .         .         .         .         .150 

§  7.  Consequences  of  the  Imputation  of  Christ's  Righteousness     .         .        IGl 
§8.  Relation  of  Faith  to  Justification 1G5 

Romish  Doctrine.  —  Remonstrant  Doctrine.  —  Protestant  Doctrine    1  70 

§9.  Objections  to  the  Protestant  Doctrine  of  Justification     .         .         .171 

§10.  Departures  from  the  Protestant  Doctrine  .         .         .         .         ,         .179 

Osiander.  —  Stancarus.  —  Piscator.  —  Arminian  Doctrine  .        185 

§  11.  Modern  Views  on  Justification 195 

Rationalistic   Theories.  —  Philosophical   Theories.  —  Speculative 
Theologians 199 

CHAPTER  XVm. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

§  1.  Its  Nature 213 

Supernatural        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .213 

§  2.  Wherein  it  consists 220 

§  3.  Method  of 226 

§  4.  Fruits  of 231 

Nature  of  Good  Works.  —  Romish  Doctrine.  —  Works  of  Super- 
erogation. —  Precepts  and  Counsels 235 

§  5    Necessity  of  Good  Works 238 

Antinomianism         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .241 

§  6.  Relation  of  Good  Works  to  Reward 241 

§  7.  Perfectionism 245 

§  8.  Theories  of  Perfectionism        ........       250 

Pelagian.  —  Romish.  —  Arminian.  —  Oberlin  .....  255 


CONTENTS   OF   THE    THIRD  VOLUME.  V 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE    LAW. 

PAOI 

§  1.  Preliminary  Principles         .         .         .  ■ 259 

Theism  the  Foundation  of  the  Moral  Law.  —  Christian  Liberty  in 
Matters  of  Indifference.  —  Scriptural  Use  of  the  Word  "Law." 
—  Different  Kinds  of  Laws.  —  Perfection  of  the   Law.  —  The 

Decalogue.  —  Rules  of  Interpretation 272 

§  2.  Division  of  the  Contents  of  the  Decalogue 272 

§  3.  The  Preface  to  the  Ten  Commandments 275 


§  4.   The  First  Commandment 

§  5.  Invocation  of  Saints 

Mariolatry        ....... 


§  6.  The  Second  Commandment     . 
Worship  of  Images  forbidden.  —  Doctrine  and  Usa^e 


mish  Church 


of  the  Ro 


277 

281 
285 

290 
296 


lielics 300 

§  7.  The  Third  Commandment  ....       305 

Import  of  the  Command.  —  Oaths.  — Romish  Doctrine.  —  Vows. 

Monastic  Vows 219 

■    '    §8.   The  Fourth  Commandment  .         .         .       321 

Its. Design.—  Origin  and  Perpetual  Obligation  of  the  Sabbath       .  323 
How  it  is  to  be  sanctified     ••......       336 

Sunday  Laws 34O 

§9.  The  Fifth  Commandment. — Its  Design  .  348 

Filial  Relation.  —  Parental  Duties.  —  The  Obedience  due  to  Civil 

Magistrates       ••••......  356 

Obedience  to  the  Church 3g0 

§  10.   The  Sixth  Commandment.  —  Its  Desi"-n     .       362 

Capital  Punishment 353 

Self-defence.  —  War.  —  Suicide.  —  Duelling        ....       368 

§  11.  The  Seventh  Commandment       .        .        .       368 

Celibacy.  —  Marriage  a  Divine  Institution 376 

As  a  Civil  Institution 377 

Monogamy 380 

Converted  Polygamists 387 

Divorce 351 

Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  —  In  what  Sense  Marriage  is 
a  Sacrament      ••........  393 

Laws  of  Protestant  Countries 401 

The  Social  Evil 4O6 

Prohibited  Marriages 407 


CONTENTS   OF   THE   THIRD   VOLUME. 


PAQB 


§  12.   The  EighlJi  Commandment         .         .         .       4-21 

Foundation  of  the  Ri^ht  of  Property.  —  Coniinimity  of  Goods.— 
Communism  and  Socialism.  —  International  Society.  —  Viola- 
tions of  the  Eighth  Commandment    ......  4."M 

§  13.   Tlte  Ninth  Commandment     .         .         .         .  A"l 

Importance  of  Truth.  —  Detraction.  —  Falsehood.  —  Mental  llcs- 
ervation. —  Pious  Frauds.  —  False  Miracles         ....  452 

§  14.   The  Tenth  Commandment     ....  4G3 
CHAPTER   XX. 

THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

§  1.   The  Word  of  God     .         .         .         .         .466 
Office  of  the  Word  as  a  Means  of  Grace.  —  Lutheran  Doctrine         4  79 

§  2.   The  Sacraments  ....       485 

Their  Nature.  —  Usage  of  the  Word.  —  Theological  Definition. — 
Lutheran  Doctrine.  —  Romish  Doctrine.  —  Remonstrant  Doc- 
trine       4  90 

§  3.  Number  of  the  Sacraments 492 

§  4.  Efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .498 

Zwinglian  and  Remonstrant  Doctrine.  —  Reformed  Doctrine.  — 
Lutheran  Doctrine.  —  Romish  Doctrine.  —  The  "  Ex  Opere  Op- 
erate"  Doctrine 509 

§5.  The  Necessity  of  the  Sacraments        .         .         .         .         .         .         .516 

§  6.  The  Validity  of  the  Sacraments      ..*....       523 

§  7.   Baptism .526 

Its  Mode.  —  Use  of  the  AVord 526 

§  8.  The  Formula  of  Baptism 539 

§  9.  The  Subjects  of  Baptism.  —  Qualifications  for  Adult  Baptism         .       541 

§  10.  Infant  Baptism 546 

Visible  Church  is  a  Divine  Institution.  —  It  does  not  consist  exclu- 
sively of  the  Regenerate.  —  The  Conuuonwealth  of  Israel  was 
the  Church.  —  The  Church  under  the  Christian  Dispensation 
Identical  with  that  of  the  Old.  —  The  Terms  of  Admission  into 
the  Church  the  Same  under  both  Dispensations. —  Infants  were 
Members  of  the  Church  under  the  Old  Testament  Economy. — 
They  are  still  Members  of  the  Church.  —  They  need  and  are 
capable  of  receiving  the  Benefits  of  Redemption  .         .         .  55  r 

§  11.  Whose  Children  are  entitled  to  Baptism  ? 558 

Usage  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  —  Theories  adopted  by  many  Prot- 
estants. —  President  Edwards's  Doctrine.  —  The  Half-Way  Cove- 
nant     .  .  .         ...  .  .         .         .         .         .         .56  7 

Puritan  Doctrine.—  Usage  of  the  Reformed  Churches         .         .       573 
§  12.  Efficacy  of  Baptism  .  .  .         .         .  ,         .         .         .         .5  79 

Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  —  Baptismal  Regeneration        591 


CONTENTS   OF   THE   TIIIllD    VOLUME  vh 

TAGE 

§  13.  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  Baptism      .......       604 

§  14.  boctrine  of  tlie  Church  of  Rome 609 


o 

*    J 


I  J    §  15.   Tlic  Lord's  Supper        .         .         .         .  611 

Of  Perpetual  Obligation 612 

Elements   to  be   Used.  —  Sacramental    Actions.  — Its    Design. — 
Qualifications  for  the  Lord's  Supper         .         .         .         •         .623 

§  16.  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches           .         .         .         .         .         .  626 

ZwingUan___View.  —  Calvin's  Doctrine.  —  The  Form  of  Statement 

in  which  the  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists  Agree          .         .         .  631 

The  Sense  in  which  Christ  is  Present  in  the  Sacrament           .         .  637 

Manducation         ..........  643 

What  is  Received  in  the  Lord's  Supper 645 

The  Efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper 647 

§  1 7.  Modern  Views  on  this  Sacrament      .......  650 

§  18.  The  Lutheran  Doctrine          ........  661 

§  19.   Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome      .         .         .         .         .         .         .67  7 

Transubstantiation.  —  Withholding  the  Cup  from  the  Laity         .  685 

The  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Sacrifice     .......  685 

§  20.  Prai/er 602 

The  01)ject  of  Prayer 700 

Requisites  for  Acceptable  Prayer         ......  701 

Different  Kinds  of  Prayer 705 

Public  Prayer 707 

Power  of  Prayer 7U.S 


PAET  lY. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 
CHAPTER  L 

STATK    OF    TIIK    SOUL   AFTKR    DEATH. 

§  1.  Protestant  Doctrine 71.*; 

The  Old  Testament  Doctrine  on  the  Future  State  .         .716 

Intermediate  State       ......  .721 

§  2.  Sleep  of  the  Soul 730 

§  3.  Patristic  Doctrine  of  the  Intermediate  State 733 

g  4.  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome         .......  743 

Purgatory 749 

CHAPTER  XL 

RF.SURRECTION. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Doctrine 771 

§2.   History  of  the  Doctrine .785 


via  CONTENTS   OF  THE   TIHRD  VOLUME. 

CHAPTER  m. 

SECOND   ADVENT. 

PAOB 

§  1.  Preliminary  "Remarks 790 

§  2.  The  Churcli  Doctrine 792 

§  3.  Pergonal  Advent  of  Christ 792 

§  4.  Calling  of  the  Gentiles 800 

§  5.  Conversion  of  the  Jews 805 

Are  the  Jews  to  be  Restored  to  their  Own  Land  ?       .        .         .807 

§  t).  Antichrist 812 

The  Papacy  the  Antichrist  of  St.  Paul.—  The  Antichrist  of  Daniel  823 

The  Antichrist  of  the  Apocalypse 825 

Roman  Catholic  Doctrine  of  Antichrist 831 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CONCOMITANTS    OF    THE    SECOND    ADVENT. 

§1.  The  General  Resurrection 837 

§  2.  The  Final  Judgment 844 

§  3.  The  End  of  the  World 851 

§  4.  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven 855 

§5.  Theory  of  the  Premillennial  Advent 861 

Did  the  Apostles  expect  the  Second  Advent  in  their  Day?     .         .867 

§  6.  Future  Punishment 868 

Duration  of  Future  Punishment.  —  Objection?  to  the  Scriptural 

Doctrine 8J8 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY, 


PART      Iir.      (COXTIXUED.) 

SOTERIOLOGY. 


SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

EE  GENERATION. 

§  1.    Usage  of  the  Word. 

The  subjective  change  wi'ought  in  the  soul  by  the  grace  of 
God,  is  variously  designated  in  Scripture.  It  is  called  a  new 
birth,  a  resurrection,  a  newlife,  a  new  creature,  a  renewing  of  the 
miiid,  a  dying  to  sin  and  living  to  righteousness,  a  translation 
from  darkness  to  light,  etc.  In  theological  language,  it  is  called 
regeneration,  renovation,  conversion.  These  terms  are  often  used 
interchangeably.  They  are  also  used  sometimes  for  the  whole 
process  of  spiritual  renovation  or  restoration  of  the  image  of  God, 
and  sometimes  for  a  particular  stage  of  that  process.  Thus  Cal- 
vin gives  the  term  its  widest  scope  :  "  Uno  verbo  poenitentiara 
interpretor  regeneration  em,  cujus  non  alius  est  scopus  nisi  ut  im- 
ago Dei,  quae   per  Adge  transgressionem  foedata  et  tantum   non 

obliterata  fuerat,  in  nobis  reformetur Atque  ha;c  quidera 

instauratio  non  uno  momento,  vel  die,  vel  anno  impletur,  sed  per 
continuos,  imo  etiam  lentos  interdum  profectus  abolet  Deus  in 
electis  suis  carnis  corruptelas."  ^ 

With  the  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century  conversion  and 
regeneration  were  synonymous  terms.  In  the  acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  we  find  such  expressions  as  "  Status  conversionis  aut  re- 
generationis,"  and  "effecta  ad  conversionem  sive  regenerationem 
prsevia."  John  Owen,  in  his  work  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  follows 
the  same  usage.  The  fifth  chapter  of  the  third  book  of  that  work 
is  entitled  "  The  nature  of  regeneration,"  and  one  of  the  heads 
under  this  is,  "  Conversion  not  wrought  by  moral  suasion  only." 
"  If  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  says,  "  acts  no  otherwise  on  men  in 
regeneration  or  conversion,"  then  so  and  so  follows.  Turrettin, 
as  we  have  seen,  distinguishes  between  what  he  calls  "  conversio 

1  Instituiio,  lib.  iii.  cap.  iii.  9,  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  i.  p.  389. 


4  PART  III.     Ch.  XV.  — regeneration. 

habitualis "  and  "  conversio  actualis."  "  Conversio  liabitualis 
seu  passiva,  fit  per  liabituum  siipernaturalium  infusionem  a 
Spiritu  Sancto.     Actualis  vero  seu  activa  per  bonorum  istorum 

exercitium Per  illam  bomo  renovatur  et  convertitur  a  Deo. 

Per  istam  homo  a  Deo  renovatus  et  convertns  convertit  se  ad 
Deum,  et  actus  agit.  Ilia  melius  regeneratio  dicitur,  quia  se 
habeti  ad  modum  novse  nativitatis,  qua  homo  reformatur  ad  imag- 
inem  Creatoris  sui.  Ista  vero  conversio,  quia  includit  liominis 
ipsius  operationem."  ^  This  is  clear  and  accurate.  As  these  two 
things  are  distinct  they  should  be  designated  by  different  terms. 
Great  confusion  arises  from  this  ambiguity  of  terms.  The  ques- 
tions whether  man  is  active  or  passive  in  regeneration  and  whether 
regeneration  is  effected  by  the  mediate  or  immediate  influence  of 
the  Spirit  must  be  answered  in  one  way  if  regeneration  includes 
conversion,  and  in  another  if  it  be  "taken  in  its  restricted  sense. 
In  the  Bible,  the  distinction  is  generally  preserved  ;  /xerarota, 
repentance,  change  of  mind,  turning  to  God,  ^.  g.,  conversion,  is 
what  man  is  called  upon  to  do  ;  avayivi'Tja-i';,  regeneration,  is  the 
act  of  God.  God  regenerates  ;  the  soul  is  regenerated,  j  In  the 
Romish  Church  justification  is  making  subjectively  just,  {.  e.,  free 
from  sin  and  inwardly  holy.  So  is  regeneration.  So  is  sanctifi- 
cation.  These  terms,  therefore,  in  the  theology  of  that  church  are 
constantly  interchanged." 

Even  by  the  Lutherans,  in  the  "  Apology  for  the  Augsburg 
Confession,"  regeneration  is  made  to  include  justification.  That 
is,  it  is  made  to  include  the  whole  process  by  which  the  sinner  is 
transferred  from  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation  into  a  state  of 
salvation.  In  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  it  is  said,  "  Vocabulum 
regenerationis  interdum  in  eo  sensu  accipitur,  ut  siraul  et  remis- 
sionem  peccatorum  (quse  duntaxat  propter  Christum  contingit) 
et  subsequentem  renovationem  complectatur,  qtiam  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus  ill  illis,  qui  per  fidem  justificati  sunt,  operatur,  quandoque 
etiam  solam  remissionem  peccatorum,  et  adoptionem  in  filios  Dei 
significat.  Et  in  hoc  posteriore  usu  seepe  multumque  id  vocabu- 
lum in  Apologia  Confessionis  ponitur.    Verbi  gratia,  cum  dicitur: 

Justificatio  est  regeneratio Quiii  etiam  vivificationis  vo-' 

cabulimi  interdum  ita  accipitur,  ut  remissionem  peccatorum  notet. 
Cum  enini  homo  per  fidem  (quam  quidem  solus  Spiritus  Sanctus 
operatur)  justificatur,  id  ipsum  revera  est  quaadam  regeneratio, 
quia  ex  filio  irae  fit  filius  Dei,  et  hoc  modo  e  niorte  in  vitam  trans- 
fertur Delude  etiam  regeneratio  saepe  pro  sanctificatione 

1  Locus  XV.  qu«s.  iv.  13,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  460. 


§  2.]  ITS   NATURE.  6 

et  renovatione  (quas  fidei  justificationem  sequitiir)  usurpatur.  In 
qua  significatione  D.  Lutlierus  liac  voce,  turn  in  libro  de  ecclesia 
et  conciliis,  turn  alibi  etiam,  multum  usus  est."  ^ 

As  this  lax  use  of  terms  was  unavoidably  attended  with  great 
confusion,  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  itself,  and  the  later  Lutheran 
theologians  were  more  precise.  They  made  especially  a  sharp 
distinction  between  justification  and  anything  signifying  a  sub- 
jective change  in  the  sinner. 

In  the  early  Church  regeneration  often  expressed,  not  any  in- 
ward moral  change,  but  an  external  change  of  state  or  relation. 
Among  the  Jews  when  a  heathen  became  a  proselyte  to  their 
religion,  he  was  said  to  be  born  again.  The  change  of  his  status 
from  without  to  within  the  theocracy,  was  called  regeneration. 
This  usage  in  a  measure  passed  over  to  the  Christian  Church. 
When  a  man  became  a  member  of  the  Church  he  was  said  to  be 
born  anew ;  and  baptism,  which  was  the  rite  of  initiation,  was 
called  regeneration.  This  use  of  the  word  has  not  yet  entirely 
passed  away.  A  distinction  is  still  sometimes  made  between 
regeneration  and  spiritual  renovation.  The  one  is  external,  the 
other  internal.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  baptismal  regeneration 
make  this  distinction,  and  interpret  the  language  of  the  formulas 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  accordance  with  it.  The  regenera- 
tion effected  in  baptism,  in  their  view,  is  not  any  spiritual 
change  in  the  state  of  the  soul,  but  simply  a  birth  into  the  visible 
Church. 

§  2.  Nature  of  Regeneration. 

By  a  consent  almost  universal  the  word  regeneration  is  now 
used  to  designate,  not  the  whole  work  of  sanctification,  nor  the 
first  stages  of  that  work  comprehended  in  conversion,  much  less 
justification  or  any  mere  external  change  of  state,  but  the  in- 
stantaneous  change  from  spiritual  death  to  spiritual  life.  Regen- 
eration, therefore,  is  a  spiritual  resurrection  ;  the  beginny-^g  o^ 
a  new  life.  Sometimes  the  word  expresses  the  act  of  God.  God 
regenerates.  Sometimes  it  designates  the  subjective  effect  of  his 
act.  The  sinner  is  regenerated.  He  becomes  a  new  creature. 
He  is  born_agaiii.  And  this  is  his  regeneration.  These  two  ap- 
plications of  the  word  are  so  allied  as  not  to  produce  confusion. 
The  nature  of  regeneration  is  not  explained  in  the  Bible  further 
than  the  account  therein  given  of  its  author,  God,  in  the  exercise 
of  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power ;  its  subject,  the  whole 
soul;  and  its  effects,  spiritual  life,  and  all  consequent  holy  acta 

1  III.  19,  20,  21 ;  Hase,  Libri  SymboUd,  3d  edit.  p.  686. 


6  PART  m.     Cii.  XV.  — REGENERATION. 

and  states.  Its  metaphysical  nature  is  left  a  mystery.  It  is  not 
the  province  of  either  philosophy  or  theology  to  solve  that  mys- 
tery. It  is,  however,  the  duty  of  the  theologian  to  examine  the 
various  theories  concerning  the  nature  of  this  saving  change,  and 
to  reject  all  such  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  Word  of  God. 

Not  a  cliange  in  the  Substance  of  the  Soul. 

Regeneration  does  not  consist  in  any  change  in  the  substance 
of  the  sold.  The  only  advocate  of  the  opposite  doctrine  among 
Protestant  theologians  Avas  Flacius  lUyricus,  so  called  from  t]ie 
place  of  his  birth.  He  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  Lutheran 
theologians  in  what  is  called  the  second  Reformation  in  Germany. 
He  did  great  service  in  the  cause  of  truth  in  resisting  the  syner- 
gism of  jNIelanctlion,  and  the  concessions  which  that  eminent  but 
yielding  reformer  was  disposed  to  make  to  the  papists.  He  con- 
tributed some  of  the  most  important  works  of  the  age  in  which 
he  lived  to  the  vindication  of  the  Protestant  faith.  His  "  Cata- 
logus  Testiura  Veritatis,"  designed  to  prove  that  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformation  had  had  their  witnesses  in  all  ages  ;  his 
"  Clavis  ScriptunB  Sacr»;"  and  especially  the  great  historical 
work,  "The  Magdeburg  Centuries"  (in  thirteen  volumes,  folio), 
of  which  he  was  the  originator  and  principal  author,  attest  his 
learning,  talents,  and  untiring  industry.  His  fervent  and  un- 
compromising spirit  involved  him  in  many  difficulties  and  sorrows. 
He  died  worn  out  by  suffering  and  labour,  says  his  biograjjlier ; 
one  of  those  men  of  faith  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy. 
Always  extreme  in  his  opinions,  he  held  that  original  sin  was  a 
corruption  of  the  substance  of  the  soul,  and  regeneration  such  a 
change  of  that  substance  as  to  restore  its  normal  purity.  All  his 
friends  who  had  sided  with  him  in  his  controversy  with  the  Syn- 
ergists and  the  supporters  of  the  Leipzig  Interim,  forsook  him 
/  now,  and  he  stood  alone.  In  the  "  Form  of  Concord,"  adojjted 
\  to  settle  all  the  controversies  of  the  period,  these  peculiar  views 
;  of  Flacius  were  condemned  as  a  virtual  revival  of  the  Manichajan 
4  heresy.  It  was  urged  that  if  the  substance  of  the  soul  be  sinful, 
Ggdj  by  whom  each  individual  soul  is  created,  must  be  the  author, 
of  sin  ;  and  that  Christ  who,  in  assuming  our  nature,  became 
consubstantial  with  us,  must  be  a  partaker  of  sin.  No  Christian 
Church  has  assumed  the  responsibility  of  the  doctrine  of  Flacius, 
or  held  that  regeneration  involves  a  change  of  the  essence  of  the 
Boul. 


§  2.]  ITS  NATURE.  7 

Regeneration  does  not  consist  in  an  Act  of  the  Soul. 

Regeneration  does  not  consist  in  any  act  or  acts  of  the  soul. 
The  word  here,  of  course,  is  to  be  understood  not  as  inckiding 
conversion,  much  less  the  whole  work  of  sanctification,  but  in 
its  restricted  sense  for  the  commencement  of  spiritual  life.  The 
opposite  view,  which  makes  regeneration,  even  in  its  narrowest 
sense,  an  act  of  the  soid,  has  been  held  by  very  different  classes 
of  theologians.  It  is,  of  course,  involved  in  the  Pelagian  doctrine 
which  denies  moral  character  to  everything  except  acts  of  the  will. 
If  "  all  sin  is  sinning,"  and  "  all  love  loving,"  then  every  moral 
change  in  man  must  be  a  change  from  one  form  of  voluntary 
activity  to  another.  As  the  later  Remonstrants  held  the  princi- 
ple in  question  they  made  regeneration  to  consist  in  the  sinner's 
own  act  in  turning  unto  God.  The  influence  exerted  on  him 
was  one  which  he  could  yield  to  or  resist.  If  he  yielded,  it  was 
a  voluntary  decision,  and  in  that  decision  his  regeneration,  or  the 
begmning  of  his  religious  hfe,  consisted. 

Dr.  Emmons^ s  Vietv. 

Dr.  Emmons,  holding  that  all  sin  and  holiness  consist  in  acts, 
which  acts,  Avhether  sinful  or  holy,  are  immediately  created  by 
God,  makes  regeneration  to  consist  in  God's  giving  rise  to  the 
commencement  of  a  series  of  holy  acts.  In  his  discourse  on  Re- 
generation, the  first  proposition  which  he  undertakes  to  establish 
is,  "  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  regeneration,  produces  nothing 
but  love."  Tliis  is  maintained  in  opposition  to  those  who  say 
that  the  Spirit  produces  a  new  nature,  principle,  disposition,  or 
taste.  "  Those  in  the  state  of  nature,"  he  says,  "  stand  in  no 
need  of  having  any  new  power,  or  faculty,  or  principle  of  action 
produced  in  them,  in  order  to  their  becoming  holy.     They  are 

just  as  capable  of  loving  as  of  hating  God This  is  true  of 

all  sinners,  who  are  as  much  moral  agents,  and  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  moral  government,  before  as  after  regeneration.  When- 
ever, therefore,  the  divine  Spirit  renews,  regenerates,  or  sanctifies 
them.  He  has  no  occasion  of  producing  anything  in  their  minds 
besides  love."  ^  "  The  love  which  the  Spirit  of  God  produces  in 
regeneration  is  the  love  of  benevolence,  and  not  the  love  of  com- 
placence." 2  "  Though  there  is  no  natural  or  necessary  connection 
between  the  first  exercise  of  love  and  all  future  exercises  of  grace, 
yet  there  is  a  constituted  connection,  which  renders  future  exer- 
1  Sermon  51;  Works,  edit.  Boston,  1842,  vol.  v.  p.  112.  2  jud^  j,.  114 


8  PART  m.    ch.  XV.  —  regeneration. 

cises  of  grace  as  certain,  as  if  they  flowed  from  a  new  nature,  or 
holy  principle,  as  many  suppose."  ^  His  first  inference  from  the 
doctrine  of  his  sermon  is,  "  If  the  Spirit  of  God  produces  notliing 
but  love  in  regeneration,  then  there  is  no  ground  for  the  distinc- 
tion which  is  often  made  between  regeneration,  conversion,  and 
sanctification.  They  are,  in  nature  and  kind,  precisely  the  same 
fruits  of  the  Spirit.  In  regeneration,  He  produces  holy  exercises  : 
in  conversion.  He  produces  holy  exercises ;  and  in  sanctification, 
He  produces  holy  exercises."  ^  Secondly,  "  If  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  regeneration  produces  nothing  but  love,  then  men  are  no  more 
passive  in  regeneration  than  in  conversion  or  sanctification. 
Those  who  hold  that  the  divine  Spirit  in  regeneration  produces 
something  prior  to  love  as  the  foundation  of  it,  that  is,  a  new 
nature,  or  new  principle  of  holiness,  maintain  that  men  are  pas- 
sive in  regeneration,  but  active  in  conversion  and  sanctification. 
....  But  if  what  has  been  said  in  this  discourse  be  true,  there 
is  no  new  nature,  or  principle  of  action,  produced  m  regeneration, 
but  only  love,  which  is  activity  itself."   ^ 

Professor  Finney''s  Doctrine. 

Professor  Finney,  in  his  "  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology," 
teaches  :  (1.)  That  satisfaction,  happiness,  blessedness,  is  the 
only  absolute  good;  that  virtue  is  only  relatively  good,  i.  e.,  good 
as  tending  to  produce  happiness.  (2.)  That  all  virtue  lies  in  the 
intention  to  promote  the  happiness  of  being,  that  is,-  of  universal 
being.  There  is  no  virtue  in  emotion,  feeling,  or  any  state  of  the 
sensibility,  for  these  are  involuntary.  Love  to  God  even  is  not 
complacency  in  his  excellence,  but  "  willing  him  good."  (3.)  All 
sin  is  selfishness,  or  the  choice  of  our  own  happiness  in  preference 
to  the  good  of  universal  being.  (4.)  Every  moral  agent  is  always 
"  as  sinful  or  holy  as  with  their  knowledge  they  can  be." 
(5.)  "  As  the  moral  law  is  the  law  of  nature,  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  entire  obedience  to  it  should  not  be  the  unalterable 
condition  of  salvation."  *  (6.)  Regeneration  is  an  "  instantane- 
ous "  change  "  from  entire  sinfubiess  to  entire  holiness."  ^  It  is 
a,  simple  change  of  purpose. 

The  system  of  Professor  Finney  is  a  remarkable  product  of 
relentless  logic.     It  is  valuable  as  a  warning.     It  shows  to  what 

1  Sermon  51 ;  Worls,  edit.  Boston,  1842,  vol.  v.  p.  116.  2  /j;,;.  p.  116. 

8  Ibid.  pp.  117,  118. 

4  Lectures  on  Systeniatic  Theology,  by  Charles  G.  Finney,  edit.  Oberlin,  Boston,  and  New 
York,  1846,  p.  364. 
6  JUd.  p.  500. 


§2.]  ITS  NATURE.  9 

extremes  the  human  mind  may  be  carried  when  abandoned  to  its 
own  guidance.  He  begins  with  certain  axioms,  or,  as  he  calls 
them,  truths  of  the  reason,  and  from  these  he  draws  conclusions 
which  are  indeed  logical  deductions,  but  which  shock  the  moral 
sense,  and  prove  nothing  but  that  his  premises  are  false.  His 
fundamental  principle  is  that  ability  limits  obligation.  Free  will 
is  defined  to  be  "  the  power  of  choosing,  or  refusing  to  choose,  in 
compliance  with  moral  obligation  in  every  instance."  ^  "  Con- 
sciousness of  the  affirmation  of  ability  to  comply  with  any  requi- 
sition, is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  affirmation  of  obligation  to 
comply  with  that  requisition." ^  "To  talk  of  inability  to  obey 
moral  law,  is  to  talk  sheer  nonsense."  ^ 

But  it  is  acknowledged  that  man's  ability  is  confined  to  acts  of 
the  will,  therefore  moral  character  can  be  predicated  only  of  such 
acts.  The  acts  of  the  will  are  either  choices  or  volitions.  "  By 
choice  is  intended  the  selection  or  choice  of  an  end.  By  volition 
is  intended  the  executive  efforts  of  the  will  to  secure  the  end  in- 
tended." *  We  are  responsible,  therefore,  only  for  our  choices  in 
the  selection  of  an  ultimate  end.  "  It  is  generally  agreed  that 
moral  obligation  respects  strictly  only  the  ultimate  intention  or 
choice  of  an  end  for  its  OAvn  sake."  ^  "I  have  said  that  moral 
obhgation  respects  the  ultimate  intention  only.  I  am  now  pre- 
pared to  say,  still  further,  that  this  is  a  first  truth  of  reason."  ^ 
"  Right  can  be  predicated  only  of  good-will,  and  wrong  only  of 

selfishness It  is  right  for  him  [for  a  man]  to  intend  the 

highest  good  of  being  as  an  end.  If  he  honestly  does  this,  he 
cannot,  doing  this,  mistake  his  duty,  for  in  doing  this  he  really 
performs  the  whole  of  duty."  ">  "  Moral  character  belongs  solely 
to  the  ultimate  intention  of  the  mind,  or  to  choice,  as  distin- 
guished from  volition."  ^ 

The  end  to  be  chosen  is  "  the  highest  good  of  being."  "  Good 
may  be  natural  or  moral.  Natural  good  is  synonymous  with  val- 
uable. Moral  good  is  synonymous  with  virtue."  ^  Moral  good 
"  is  only  a  relative  good.  It  does  meet  a  demand  of  our  being, 
and  therefore  produces  satisfaction.  This  satisfaction  is  the  ulti- 
mate good  of  being."  ^^  "  I  come  now  to  state  the  point  upon 
which  issue  is  taken,  to  wit :  That  enjoyment,  blessedness,  or 
mental  satisfaction,  is  the  only  ultimate  good."  ^^   "  Of  what  value 

1  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology,  by  Charles  G.  Finney,  edit.  Oberlin,  Boston,  and  New 
York,  1846,  p.  26. 

2  Ibid.  p.  33.  8  JUd.  p.  4.  *  [hid.  p.  44. 
5  Ibid.  p.  26.                                    6  Ibid.  p.  36.                              7  ibid.  p.  149. 

8  lUd.  p.  157.  9  Ibid.  p.  45.  i<»  Ibid.  p.  48.  n  Ibid.  p.  120. 


10  PART  m.   Ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

is  the  true,  the  right,  the  just,  etc.,  aside  from  the  pleasure  or 
mental  satisfaction  resulting  from  them  to  sentient  existences.'  ^ 

It  follows  from  these  principles  that  men  perform  their  whole 
duty,  and  are  perfect,  if  they  intend  the  happiness  of  being  in 
general.  There  is  no  morality  in  emotions,  sentiments,  or  feel- 
ings. These  are  involuntary  states  of  the  sensibility,  and  are  in 
themselves  neither  good  nor  bad.  "  If  any  outward  action  or 
state  of  the  feeling  exists,  in  opposition  to  the  intention  or  choice 
of  the  mind,  it  cannot  by  any  possibility  have  moral  character. 
Whatever  is  beyond  the  control  of  a  moral  agent,  he  cannot  be 
responsible  for."^    "  Love  may,  and  often  does  exist,  as  every  one 

knows,  in  the  form  of  a  mere  feeling  or  emotion This 

emotion  or  feeling,  as  we  are  all  aware,  is  purely  an  involuntary 
state  of  mind.  Because  it  is  a  phenomenon  of  the  sensibility, 
and  of  course  a  passive  state  of  mind,  it  has  in  itself  no  moral 
character."  ^  Gratitude,  "  as  a  mere  feeling  or  phenomenon  of 
the  sensibility,  ....  has  no  moral  character."  *  The  same  is 
said  of  benevolence,  compassion,  mercy,  conscientiousness,  etc. 
The  doctrine  is,  "  No  state  of  the  sensibility  has  any  moral  char- 
acter in  itseK."  ^  The  love  which  has  moral  excellence,  and 
which  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  is  not  a  feeling  of  complacency, 
but  "  good-will,"  willing  the  good  or  happiness  of  its  object. 
Should  a  man,  therefore,  under  the  impulse  of  a  benevolent  feel- 
ing, or  a  sense  of  duty,  perform  a  right  act,  he  would  sin  as  really 
as  if,  under  the  impulse  of  malice  or  cupidity,  he  should  perform 
a  bad  act.  The  illustration  is,  that  to  pay  a  debt  from  a  sense  of 
justice,  is  as  wicked  as  to  steal  a  horse  from  acquisitiveness.  A 
man  "  may  be  prevented  [from  committing  commercial  injustice] 
by  a  constitutional  or  phrenological  conscientiousness  or  sense  of 
justice.  But  this  is  only  a  feeling  of  the  sensibility,  and  if  re- 
strained only  by  this,  he  is  just  as  absolutely  selfish  as  if  he  had 
stolen  a  horse  in  obedience  to  acquisitiveness."  ^  "  If  the  selfish 
man  were  to  preach  the  gospel,  it  would  be  only  because  upon  the 
whole  it  was  most  pleasing  or  gratifying  to  himself,  and  not  at 
all  for  the  sake  of  the  good  of  being  as  an  end.  If  he  should  be- 
come a  pirate,  it  would  be  exactly  for  the  same  reason 

Whichever  course  he  takes,  he  takes  it  for  precisely  the  same 
reason ;  and  vdth  the  same  degree  of  light  it  must  involve  the 
same  degree  of  guilt."  ">      To  feed  the  poor  from  a  feeling  of 

1  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology,  by  Charles  G.  Finney,  edit.  Oberlin,  Boston,  and  New 
york,  1846,  p.  122. 

2  Jbid.  p.  164.  3  Ibid.  p.  213.  *  Ibid.  p.  278. 
6  Ibid.  p.  521.                                     6  Jbid.  p.  317,  318.  T  Ibid.  p.  355. 


§2.J  ITS  NATURE..  11 

benevolence,  and  to  murder  a  parent  from  a  feeling  of  malice, 
involve  the  same  degree  of  guilt !  Such  a  sacrifice  to  logic  was 
never  made  by  any  man  before.  But  still  more  wonderful,  if 
possible,  is  the  declaration  that  a  man  may  "  feel  deeply  malicious 
and  revengeful  feelings  toward  God.  But  sin  does  not  consist  in 
these  feelings,  nor  necessarily  imply  them."  ^ 

Moral  excellence  is  not  an  object  of  love.  To  say  that  we  are 
bound  to  love  God  because  He  is  good,  is  said  to  be  "most  non- 
sensical. Wliat  is  it  to  love  God  ?  Why,  as  is  agreed,  it  is  not 
to  exercise  a  mere  emotion  of  complacency  in  Him.  It  is  to  will 
somethina;  to  Him."  ^  "  Should  it  be  said  that  God's  holiness  is 
the  foundation  of  our  obligation  to  love  Him,  I  ask  in  what  sense 
it  can  be  so  ?  What  is  the  nature  or  form  of  that  love,  which 
his  virtue  lays  us  under  an  obligation  to  exercise  ?  It  cannot  be 
a  mere  emotion  of  complacency,  for  emotions  being  invohmtary 
states  of  mind  and  mere  phenomena  of  the  sensibility,  are  with- 
out the  pale  of  legislation  and  morality."  ^  "  We  are  under  in- 
finite obligation  to  love  God,  and  to  will  his  good  with  all  our 
power,  because  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  his  well-being,  whether 
He  is  holy  or  sinful.  Upon  condition  that  He  is  holy,  we  are 
under  obligation  to  will  his  actual  blessedness,  but  certainly  we 
are  under  obligation  to  will  it  with  no  more  than  all  our  heart, 
and  soul,  and  mind,  and  strength.  But  this  we  are  required  tc 
do  because  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  his  blessedness,  whatever  his 
character  might  be."  ^     Surely  such  a  system  is  a  iiroSeiyixa  t^s 

aTreiOcia'?. 

Dr.  Taylor''^  View. 
The  system  of  Dr.  Taylor  of  New  Haven  agrees  with  that  of 
Professor  Finney  in  making  free  agency  include  plenary  power  ; 
in  limiting  responsibility  and  moral  character  to  voluntary  acts  ; 
in  regarding  happiness  as  the  chief  good  ;  and  in  making  regen- 
eration to  consist  in  a  change  of  purpose.  The  two  systems  dif- 
fer, however,  essentially  as  to  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  or 
nature  of  virtue ;  and  as  to  the  nature  of  that  change  of  purpose  in 
which  regeneration  consists.  Professor  Finney  adopts  the  common 
eudamonistic  theory  which  makes  the  happiness  of  being,  i.  e.. 
of  the  universe,  the  chief  good  ;  and  therefore  makes  virtue  con- 
sist in  the  governing  purpose  to  promote  that  happiness,  and  all 
sin  in  the  purpose  to  seek  our  own  happiness,  instead  of  the  hap- 

1  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology,  by  Charles  G.  Finney,  C  berlin,  Boston,  and  New 
York,  1846,  p.  296. 

2  Ibid.  p.  64.  8  lUd.  p.  91.  4  Ibid.  p.  99 


12  PART  m.   Ch.  XV. —  regeneration. 

piness  of  being ;  consequently,  regeneration  is  a  change  of  that 
purpose  ;  that  is,  it  is  a  change  from  selfishness  to  benevolence. 

Dr.  Taylor,  on  the  other  hand,  recognized  the  fact  that  as  the 
desire  of  happiness  is  a  constituent  element  of  our  nature,  or  law 
of  our  being,  it  must  be  innocent,  and  therefore  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded mth  selfishness.  He  hence  inferred  that  this  desire  of 
happiness  is  rightfully  the  controlling  principle  of  action  in  all 
sentient  and  rational  creatures.  Sin  consists  in  seeking  happi- 
ness in  the  creature ;  holiness  in  seeking  happiness  in  God  ;  re- 
generation is  the  purpose  or  decision  of  a  sinner  to  seek  his  hap- 
piness in  God  and  not  in  the  world.  This  change  of  purpose,  he 
sometimes  calls  a  "  change  of  heart,"  sometimes  "  giving  the 
heart  to  God,"  sometimes  "  loving  God."  As  regeneration  is  the 
choice  of  God  as  our  chief  good,  it  is  an  intelligent,  voluntary  act 
of  the  soul,  and  therefore  must  take  place  according  to  the  estab- 
lished laws  of  mental  action.  It  supposes  the  preliminary  acts  of 
consideration,  appreciation,  and  comparison.  The  sinner  contem- 
plates God  as  a  source  of  happiness,  estimates  his  suitableness  to 
the  necessities  of  his  nature,  compares  Him  with  other  objects 
of  choice,  and  decides  to  choose  God  as  his  portion.  Sometimes 
the  Avord  regeneration  is  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense,  including 
the  whole  jjrocess  of  consideration  and  decision  ;  sometimes  in  a 
restricted  sense,  for  the  decision  itself. 

Such  being  the  nature  of  regeneration,  it  is  of  course  brought 
about  tlirough  the  influence  of  the  truth.  The  Bible  reveals  the 
nature  of  God,  and  his  capacity  and  willingness  to  make  his 
creatures  happy  ;  it  exhibits  all  the  motives  which  should  deter- 
mine the  soul  to  take  God  for  its  portion.  As  regeneration  is  a 
rational  and  voluntary  act,  it  is  inconceivable  that  it  should  take 
place  except  in  view  of  rational  considerations.  The  Spirit's  in- 
fluence in  this  process  is  not  denied.  The  fact  is  admitted  that 
all  the  considerations  which  ought  to  determine  the  sinner  to 
make  choice  of  God,  will  remain  without  saving  effect,  unless  the 
Spirit  renders  them  effectual. 

These  views  are  presented  at  length  in  the  "  Christian  Specta- 
tor "  (a  quarterly  review)  for  1829.  On  the  nature  of  the 
change  in  question.  Dr.  Taylor  says  :  "  Regeneration,  considered 
as  a  moral  change  of  which  man  is  the  subject  —  giving  God  the 
heart  —  making  a  new  heart  —  loving  God  supremely,  etc.,  are 
terms  and  phrases  which,  in  popular  use,  denote  a  complex  act. 
....  These  words,  in  all  ordinary  speech  and  writing,  are  used 
to  denote  one  act,  and  yet  this  one  act  includes  a  process  of  mental 


§2.]  ITS  NATURE.  13 

acts,  consisting  of  the  perception  and  comparison  of  motives,  the 
estimate  of  their  relative  worth,  and  the  choice  or  willing  of  the 
external  action."  "  When  we  speak  of  the  means  of  regenera- 
tion, we  shall  use  the  word  regeneration  in  a  more  limited  import 
than  its  ordinary  popular  import ;  and  shall  confine  it,  chiefly  for 
the  sake  of  convenient  phraseology,  to  the  act  of  the  will  or  heart, 
in  distinction  from  other  mental  acts  connected  with  it ;  or  to  that 
act  of  the  will  or  heart  which  consists  in  a  preference  of  God  to 
every  other  object ;  or  to  that  disposition  of  the  heart,  or  govern- 
ing affection  or  purpose  of  the  man,  which  consecrates  him  to  the 
service  and  gloiy  of  God."  ^ 

"  Self-love  or  desire  of  happiness,  is  the  primary  cause  or  rea 
son  of  all  acts  of  preference  or  choice  which  fix  supremely  on  any 
object.  In  every  moral  being  who  forms  a  moral  character,  there 
must  be  a  first  moral  act  of  preference  or  choice.  This  must  re- 
spect some  one  object,  God  or  mammon,  as  the  chief  good,  or  as 
an  object  of  supreme  affection.  Now  whence  comes  such  a  choice 
or  preference  ?  Not  from  a  previous  choice  or  preference  of  the 
same  object,  for  we  speak  of  the  first  choice  of  the  object.  The 
answer  which  human  consciousness  gives,  is,  that  the  being  con- 
stituted with  a  capacity  for  happiness  desires  to  be  happy ;  and 
knowing  that  he  is  capable  of  deriving  happiness  from  different 
objects,  considers  from  which  the  greatest  happiness  may  be  de- 
rived, and  as  in  this  respect  he  judges  or  estimates  their  relative 
value,  so  he  chooses  or  prefers  the  one  or  the  other  as  his  chief 
good.  While  this  must  be  the  process  by  which  a  moral  being 
forms  his  first  moral  preference,  substantially  the  same  process  is 
indispensable  to  a  change  of  this  preference.  The  change  involves 
the  preference  of  a  new  object  as  the  chief  good  ;  a  preference 
which  the  former  preference  has  no  tendency  to  produce,  but  a 
direct  tendency  to  prevent ;  a  preference,  therefore,  not  result- 
ing from,  or  in  any  way  occasioned  by  a  previous  preference  of 
any  given  object,  but  resulting  from  those  acts  of  considering  and 
comparing  the  sources  of  happiness,  which  are  dictated  by  the 
desire  of  happiness  or  seK-love."  ^ 

Regeneration  being  a  change  of  purpose,  the  mode  in  which  it 
is  produced  is  thus  explained.  "  If  man  without  divine  grace  is 
a  moral  agent,  then  he  is  qualified  so  to  consider,  compare,  and 
estimate  the  objects  of  choice  as  means  of  happiness,  and  capable 
also  of  such  constitutional  excitement  in  view  of  the  good  and 
evil  set  before  him,  as  might  result  in  his  giving  his  heart  to  God, 
1  Christian  Sjyectator,  vol.  i.  New  Haven,  1829,  pp.  16-19.  2  /Ji ,?.  p.  21. 


14  PART  m.  ch.  XV.  — regeneration. 

without  grace The  act  of  giving  God  the  heart  must 

take  place  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  laws  of  moral  agency 
and  of  voluntary  action.  If  the  interposing  grace  violate  these 
laws,  the  effect  cannot  be  moral  action ;  and  it  must  violate  these 
laws,  if  it  dispense  mth  the  class  of  mental  acts  now  under  con- 
sideration. Whatever,  therefore,  be  the  influence  which  secures 
a  change  of  heart  in  the  sinner,  the  change  itself  is  a  moral 
change,  and  imphes  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers  and  capacities 
of  the  moral  agent,  which  in  the  nature  of  things  are  essential  to 
a  moral  act."  ^  On  a  previous  page  it  had  been  said,  "  The 
Scriptures  authorize  us  to  assert,  generally,  that  the  mode  of 
di^dne  influence  is  consistent  with  the  moral  nature  of  this 
change  as  a  voluntary  act  of  man ;  and,  also,  that  it  is  through 
the  truth,  and  imphes  attention  to  truth  on  the  part  of  man."  ^ 
"  Cannot,"  Dr.  Taylor  asks,  "  He  who  formed  the  mind  of 
man,  reach  it  -with  an  influence  of  his  Spirit,  which  shall  accord 
with  all  the  laws  of  voluntary  and  moral  action  ?  Because  mo- 
tives, without  a  divine  interposition,  ^vill  not  secui-e  tliis  moral 
change  in  sinful  man,  and  because  they  have  no  positive  efficiency 
in  its  production,  must  God  in  producing  it  dispense  with  motives 
altogether  ?  Must  the  appropriate  connections  between  motives 
and  acts  of  will,  or  between  the  exercise  of  affections  and  the  per- 
ception of  their  objects,  be  dissolved,  and  have  no  place  ?  Must 
God,  if  by  his  grace  He  brings  sinners  to  give  Him  their  heart 
in  holy  love,  accomplish  the  change  in  such  a  manner  that  they 
shall  have  no  prior  perception  or  view  of  the  object  of  their  love  ; 
and  know  not  what  or  whom  they  love,  or  wherefore  they  love 
Him,  rather  than  their  former  idols  ?  Does  a  consistent  theol- 
ogy thus  limit  the  Holy  One,  and  oblige  Him  to  accomplish  the 
veriest  impossibilities,  in  transforming  the  moral  character  of  sin- 
ful man  ?  "  ^  This  may  be  a  correct  account  of  the  process  of 
conversion,  with  which  this  system  confounds  regeneration.  Con- 
version is  indeed  a  voluntary  turning  of  the  soul  from  sin  to  God. 
From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  produced  proximately  by  ai:)pro- 
priate  motives,  or  it  would  be  neither  rational  nor  holy.  But 
this  proves  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  regeneration.  The  most 
accurate  analysis  of  the  laws  of  vision  can  throw  no  liglit  on  the 
way  in  which  Christ  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind. 

Remarks. 
It  is  plain  that  these  views  of  regeneration  are  mere  philosoph- 
ical theories.     Dr.  Emmons  assumes  that  such  is  the  dependence 

:v  Christian  Spectator,  182Q,  p.  223.  2  Jbid.  p.  17  »  Ibid.   p.  489. 


§2.]  ITS   NATURE.  15 

of  a  creature  upon  tlie  creator,  that  it  cannot  act.  No  creature  ^ 
can  be  a  cause.  There  is  no  efficiency  in  second  causes.  Then, 
of  course,  the  first  cause  must  produce  all  effects.  God  creates 
everytliing,  even  volitions.  In  the  soul  there  are  only  acts  or  ex- 
ercises. Regeneration,  therefore,  is  an  act  or  volition  created  by 
God ;  or,  it  is  the  name  given  to  the  commencement  of  a  new 
series  of  exercises  which  are  holy  instead  of  sinful. 

Professor  Finney  assumes  that  plenary  ability  is  essential  to 
moral  agency  ;  that  a  man,  so  far  as  his  internal  life  is  con- 
cerned, has  power  only  over  his  choices  and  volitions  ;  all,  there- 
fore, for  which  he  is  responsible,  all  that  constitutes  moral  char- 
acter, must  fall  under  the  category  of  choice,  the  selection  of  an 
ultimate  end.  Assuming,  moreover,  that  happiness  is  the  only 
absolute  good,  all  sin  consists  in  the  undue  pursuit  of  our  own 
happiness,  and  all  virtue  in  benevolence  or  the  purpose  to  seek 
the  happiness  of  being.  Regeneration,  therefore,  consists  in  the 
change  of  the  purpose  to  seek  our  own  happiness,  for  the  purpose 
to  seek  as  our  ultimate  end  the  happiness  of  the  universe. 

Dr.  Taylor,  agreeing  Avith  Professor  Finney  on  the  nature  of 
free  agency,  and  in  the  doctrine  that  happiness  is  the  chief  good, 
holds  vrith  him  that  all  sin  and  holiness  consist  in  voluntary  ac- 
tion. But  assuming  that  self-love,  as  distinguished  from  selfish- 
ness, is  the  motive  in  all  rational  moral  action,  he  makes  regen- 
eration to  consist  in  the  choice  of  God  as  the  source  of  our 
own  happiness. 

All  these  speculations  are  outside  of  the  Bible.  They  have  no 
authority  or  value  which  they  do  not  derive  from  their  inherent 
truth,  and  any  man  is  at  liberty  to  dispute  them,  if  they  do  not 
commend  themselves  to  his  own  reason  and  conscience.  But  be- 
sides the  purely  philosophical  character  of  these  views,  it  would 
be  easy  to  show,  not  only  that  they  have  no  valid  ground  on 
which  to  rest,  but  also  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  teach- 
ings of  Scriptm'e  and  vdth  genuine  Christian  experience.  This 
will  be  attempted  when  the  Scriptural  accomit  of  regeneration 
comes  to  be  considered. 

Regeneration  not  a  cliange  in  any  one  Faculty  of  the  Soul. 

Regeneration  does  not  consist  in  a  change  in  any  one  of  the 
facultiesjof  the  soul,  whether  the  sensibility,  or  the  will,  or  the 
iiiteliect.  According  to  some  theologians,  the  feelings,  or  heart, 
in  the  restricted  sense  of  that  word,  is  the  exclusive  seat  of  orig- 
inal sin.     Hereditary  corruption,  in  other  words,  is  made  to  con- 


16  PART  m.   ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

sist  in  the  aversion  of  tlie  heart  from  divine  things,  and  a  prefer- 
ence for  the  things  of  the  world.     The  end  to  be  accomplished  in 
regeneration,  therefore,  is  simply  to  correct  this  aversion.     The 
understanding,  it  is  urged,  so  far  as  moral  and  religious  truth  is 
concerned,  apprehends  aright  and  appreciates  what  is  loved ;  and 
in  hke  manner,  in  the  same  sphere,  we  believe  what  we  appre- 
hend as   right  and  good.     If,  therefore,  the  feelings  are  made 
what  they  ought  to  be,  all  the  other  operations  oFlthe  mind,  or 
/iiuier  man,  will  be  right.     This  theory  is  founded  in  part  upon 
I  a  mistaken  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  heart "  as  used 
I  in  the  Scriptures.     In  a  multitude  of   cases,  and  in  all  cases 
J  where  regeneration  is  spoken  of,  it  means  the  whole  soul ;  that 
■  is,  it  includes  the  intellect,  will,  and  the  conscience  as  well  as  the 
affections.     Hence  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  eyes,  of  the  thoughts, 
of  the  purposes,  of  the  devices,  as  well  as  of  the  feelings  or  affec- 
tions of  the  heart.     In  Scriptural  language,  therefore,  a  "  new 
heart "  does  not  mean  simply  a  new  state  of  feeling,  but  a  radi- 
cal chansi;e  in  the  state  of  the  whole  soul  or  interior  man.     Be- 
\  sides,  this  theory  overlooks  what  the  Bible  constantly  assumes : 
1  the  nnity  of  our  inwardjife.    The  Scriptures  do  not  contemplate 
the  intellect,  the  will,  and  the  affections,  as  independent,  separa- 
.  ble  elements  of  a  composite  whole.     These  faculties  are  only 
V  different  forms  of  activity  in  one  and  the  same  subsistence.     No 
exercise  of  the  affections   can  occur  without  an  exercise  of  the 
intellect,  and,  if  the  object  be  moral  or  religious,  Avithout  includ- 
ing a  correspondent  exercise  of  our  moral  nature. 

Regeneration  not  merely  Illumination. 

Another  and  antagonistic  theory  equally  one-sided,  is  that  the 
intellect  only  is  in  fault,  and  that  regeneration  resolves  itself  into 
illumination.  This  view  is  far  more  plausible  than  the  preced- 
ing. The  Bible  makes  eternal  life  to  consist  in  knowledge ;  sin- 
fulness is  blindness,  or  darkness;  the  transition  from  a  state  of 
sin  to  a  state  of  holiness  is  a  translation  from  darkness  into 
light;  men  are  said  to  be  renewed  unto  knowledge,  i.  e., 
knowledge  is  the  effect  of  regeneration  ,  conversion  is  said  to  be 
effected  by  the  revelation  of  Christ ;  the  rejection  of  Him  as  the 
Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  men  is  referred  to  the  fact  that  the 
eyes  of  those  who  believe  not  are  blinded  by  the  god  of  this 
world.  These  Scriptural  representations  prove  much.  They 
prove  that  knowledge  is  essential  to  all  holy  exercises ;  that  truth, 
as  the  object  of  knowledge,  is  of  vital  importance,  and  that  error 


§  2.]  ITS  NATURE.  17 

is  always  evil  and  often  fatal ;  and  that  the  effects  of  regenera- 
tion, so  far  as  they  reveal  themselves  in  our  consciousness,  con- 
sist largely  in  the  spiritual  apprehension  or  discernment  of  divine 
things.  These  representations  also  prove  that  in  the  order  of 
nature,  knowledge,  or  spiritual  discernment,  is  antecedent  and 
causative  relatively  to  aU  holy  exercises  of  the  feelings  or  affec- 
tions. It  is  the  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  truth  that  awakens 
love,  faith,  and  delight ;  and  not  love  that  produces  spiritual 
discernment.  It  was  the  vision  Paul  had  of  the  divine  glory  of 
Christ  that  made  him  instantly  and  forever  his  worshipper  and 
servant.  The  Scriptures,  however,  do  not  teach  that  regenera- 
tion consists  exclusively  m  illumination,  or  that  the  cognitive 
faculties  are  exclusively  the  subject  of  the  renewing  power  of  the 
Spirit.  It  is  the  soul  as  such  that  is  spiritually  dead  ;  and  it  is 
to  the  soul  that  a  new  principle  of  life  controlling  all  its  exer- 
cises, whether  of  the  intellect,  the  sensibihty,  the  conscience,  or 
the  will  is  imparted. 

Not  a   Change  of  the  Higher^  as  distinguished  from  the  Lower 
Powers  of  the  Soul. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  subject,  which  falls  under  this 
head  of  what  may  be  called  partial  regeneration.  It  is  founded 
on  jtrichotomy5j  or  the  assumption  of  three  elements  in  the  consti- 
tution of  man,  namely,  the  body,  the  soul,  and  the  spirit  (the 
o-uj/xa,  \pvxri,  and  TTveu/Att)  ;  the  fii'st  material,  the  second  animal,  the  v^ 
third  spiritual.  To  the  second,  i.  e.,  to  the  soul  or  i/'^x^/,  are  re- 
ferred what  man  has  in  common  with  the  lower  animals  ;  life, 
sensibility,  will,  and  understanding ;  to  the  spirit  what  is  peculiar 
to  us  as  rational,  moral,  and  religious  beings,  namely,  conscience 
and  reason.  Tliis  third  element,  the  -n-vevixa^  or  reason,  is  often 
called  divine  ;  sometimes  in  a  literal,  and  sometimes  in  a  figura- 
tive sense.  In  either  case,  according  to  the  theory  under  consid- 
eration, it  is  not  the  seat  of  sin,  and  is  uncorrupted  by  the  fall. 
It  remains,  although  clouded  and  perverted  by  the  disorder  in 
the  lower  departments  of  our  nature,  the  point  of  contact  and 
connection  between  man  and  God.  This  at  least  is  one  view  of 
the  matter.  According  to  another  view,  neither  the  body  nor  the 
soul  (neither  o-w/xa  nor  ^^'xv')',  has  any  moral  character.  The  seat 
of  the  moral  and  divine  life  is  exclusively  the  TneG/^a  or  spirit. 
This  is  said  to  be  paralyzed  by  the  fall.  It  is  figuratively  dead ; 
unsusceptible  of  impression  fi-oni  divine  tilings.  There  are  as 
many  theories  of  the  nature  of  regeneration  among  the  advocates 

VOL.  III.  2 


18  PART  III.    Ch.  XV,  — regeneration. 

of  this  threefold  division  iii  the  constitution  of  man,  as  there  are 
systems  of  anthropology.  The  idea  common  to  all,  or  to  a  ma- 
jority  of  them,  is  that  regeneration  consists  in  restoring  the  Tri/eii/xa 
or  spirit  to  its  normal  controlUng  influence  over  the  whole  man. 
According  to  some,  this  is  a  natural  process  in  which  an  animal 
man,  i.  e.,  a  man  governed  by  the  ^"xn,  comes  to  be  reasonable, 
or  pneumatic,  i.  e.,  governed  by  the  irvevfjia  or  higher  powers  of 
his  nature.  According  to  others,  it  is  a  supernatural  effect  due 
to  the  action  of  the  divine  (Jlvevfxa')  Spirit  upon  the  human  Trvtvfjia 
or  spirit.  In  either  case,  however,  the  7n^e^;//aTt/<d?,  or  spiritual 
man,  is  not  one  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  as  a  principle  of 
a  new,  spiritual  life  ;  but  one  who'  is  governed  by  his  own  Tn/eC/xa 
or  spirit.  According  to  others  again,  the  -n-i^tvixa  or  reason  in 
man  is  God,  the  God-consciousness,  the  Logos,  and  regeneration 
is  the  gradually  acquired  ascendency  of  this  divine  element  of  our 
nature. 

In  reference  to  these  views  of  regeneration  it  is  sufficient  to 
remark,  (1.)  That  the  threefold  division  of  our  nature  on  which 
they  are  founded  is  anti scriptural,  as  we  have  already  attempted 
to  prove.     (2.)  Admitting  that  there  is  a  foundation  for  such  a 
distmction,  it  is  not  of  the  kind  assumed  in  these  theories.     The 
soul  and  spirit  are  not    distmct   substances   or  essences,  one  of 
I  which  may  be  holy  and  the  other  unholy,  or  negative.     This  is 
I  inconsistent  with  the  unity  of  our  interior  life  which  the  Scrip- 
vtures  constantly  assume.     (3.)  It  subverts  the  Scriptviral  doc- 
trine of  regeneration  and  sanctification  to  make  the  governing 
principle  in  the  renewed  to  be  their  own.7rv£C/j;a  or  spirit,  and  not 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

H-.  *         Modern  Speculative  Views  on  this  Subject. 

The  modern  speculative  philosophy  has  mtroduced  such  a 
radical  change  in  the  views  entertained  of  the  nature  of  God,  of 
his  relation  to  the  world,  of  the  nature  of  man  and  of  his  rela- 
tion to  God,  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  and  of  the  appli- 
cation of  his  redemption  to  the  salvation  of  men,  that  all  the  old, 
and,  it  may  be  safely  said.  Scriptural  forms  of  these  doctrines  ■ 
have  been  superseded,  and  others  introduced  which  are  unin- 
telligible except  in  the  light  of  that  philosophy,  and  which  to  a 
great  extent  reduce  the  truths  of  the  Bible  to  the  form  of  philo- 
sophical dogmas.  We  cease  to  hear  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the 
third  person  of  the  Trinity,  applying  to  men  the  redemption  pur- 
chased by  Christ ;  of  regeneration  by  his  almighty  power,  or  of 


§2.]  ITS  NATURE.  19 

his  dwellins:  in  the  hearts  of  believers.  The  forms  of  this  new 
theology  are  very  diversified.  They  are  all  perhaps  compre- 
hended under  three  classes  :  first,  those  which  are  avowedly  pan- 
theistic, although  claiming  to  be  Christian ;  secondly,  those  which 
are  Theistic  but  do  not  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  and 
thirdly,  those  Avhich  endeavour .  to  bring  theology  as  a  philoso- 
phy into  the  forms  of  Chi'istian  doctrine.  In  all,  however,  the 
anthropology,  christology,  soteriology,  and  ecclesiology  advo- 
cated, are  so  changed  as  to  render  it  impossible  to  retain  in  their 
exhibition  the  terms  and  formulas  Avith  which  the  Church  from 
the  beginning  has  been  familiar.  Regeneration,  justification,  and 
sanctificatiou  are  almost  antiquated  terms  ;  and  what  remains  of 
the  truths  those  terms  were  used  to  express,  is  merged  into  the 
one  idea  of  the  development  of  a  new  divine  life  in  the  soul.  As 
to  anthropology,  these  modern  speculative,  or  as  they  often  call 
themselves,  and  are  called  by  others,  mystic,  theologians  teach, 
(1.)  That  there  is  no  dualism  in  man  between  soul  and  body. 
There  is  but  one  life.  The  body  is  the  soul  projectmg  itself  ex- 
ternally. Without  a  body  there  is  no  soul.  (2.)  That  there  is 
no  real  dualism  between  God  and  man.  The  identity  between 
God  and  man  is  the  last  result  of  modern  speculation  ;  and  it  is 
the  fundamental  idea  of  Christianity. 

Soul  and  Body  one. 

As  to  the  former  of  these  points,  Schleiermacher^  says,  "There 
are  not  a  spiritual  and  a  corporeal  world,  a  corporeal  and  spirit- 
ual existence  of  man.  Such  representations  lead  to  nothing  but 
the  dead  mechanism  of  a  preestablished  harmony.  Body  and 
spirit  are  actual  only  in  and  with  each  other,  so  that  corporeal 
and  spiritual  action  can  only  be  relatively  distinguished."  The 
late  President  Ranch  ^  says,  "  A  dualism  which  admits  of  two 
principles  for  one  being,  offers  many  difficulties,  and  the  greatest 
is,  that  it  cannot  tell  how  the  principles  can  be  united  in  a  third. 
A  river  may  originate  in  two  fountains,  but  a  science  cannot,  and 
much  less  individual  life."  "It  would  be  wrong  to  say  that  man 
consists  of  two  essentially  different  substances,  of  earth  and  the 
soul ;  but  he  is  soul  only,  and  cannot  be  anything  else.  This 
soul,  however,  unfolds  itself  externally  in  the  life  of  the  body,  and 
internally  in  the  life  of  the  mind."  So  Olshausen^  teaches  that 
the  soul  has  no  subsistence  but  m  the  body.     Dr.  J.  W.  Nevin  * 

1  Dinlektih,  sect.  290-295  ;    Works,  Berlin,  1839,  3d  div.  vol.  iv.  part  2,  pp.  24.5-255. 

2  Psychology,  New  York,  1840,  pp.  169,  173.  8  Commentary,  1  Cor.  xv.  20. 
4  Mystical  Presence,  edit.  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  171. 


20  PART  m.   ch.  XV.  -  regeneration. 

Bays,  "  We  have  no  right  to  think  of  the  body  in  any  way  as  a 
form  of  existence  of  and  by  itself,  into  which  the  soul  as  another 
form  of  such  existence  is  thrust  in  a  mechanical  way.  Both  form 
one  life.  The  soul  to  be  complete,  to  develop  itself  at  all  as  a 
soul,  must  externalize  itself,  throw  itself  out  in  space ;  and  this 
externalization  is  the  body." 

Grod  and  Man  one. 

As  to  the  second  point,  or  the  oneness  of  God  and  man,  as  the 
soul  externalizes  itself  in  the  body,  "  dividing  itself  only  that  its 
unity  may  become  thus  the  more  free  and  intensely  complete,"  ^  so 
God  externalizes  Himself  in  the  world.  Schleiermacher  says,  it  is 
in  vain  to  attempt  to  conceive  of  God  as  existing  either  before  or 
out  of  the  world.  They  may  be  distinguished  in  thought,  but  are 
only  "  zwei  Werthe  fur  dieselbe  Forderung,  two  values  of  the 
same  postulate."  According  to  this  philosophy,  it  is  just  as  true, 
"  No  world,  no  God,"  as  "  No  body,  no  soul."  "  The  world,^  in 
its  lower  view,  is  not  simply  the  outward  theatre  or  stage  on 
which  man  is  to  act  his  part  as  a  candidate  for  heaven.  In  the 
midst  of  all  its  different  forms  of  existence,  it  is  pervaded  through- 
out with  the  power  of  a  single  life,  which  comes  ultimately  to  its 
full  sense  and  force  only  in  the  human  person."  The  world, 
therefore,  is  pervaded  by  "  the  power  of  a  single  life ;  "  the  high- 
est form  of  that  hfe  (on  earth)  is  man.  What  is  that  life  ?  What 
is  that  pervading  principle  which  reveals  itself  in  such  manifold 
forms  of  existence,  and  culminates  in  man?  It  is,  of  course, 
God.  Man,  therefore,  as  Schleiermacher  says,  is  "  the  existence- 
form  "  of  God  on  earth.2  UUmann  *  says  that  the  German  mys- 
tics m  the  Middle  Ages  taught  "  the  oneness  of  Deity  and  hu- 
manity." The  results  reached  by  the  mystics  under  the  guidance 
of  feeling,  he  says,  modern  philosophy  has  reached  by  specula- 
tion. This  doctrine  of  the  essential  oneness  of  God  and  man,  the 
speculative  theologians  adopt  as  the  fundamental  idea  of  Chris- 
tianity. To  work  out  that  idea  in  a  manner  compatible  with 
Theism  and  the  Gospel,  is  the  problem  which  those  theologians 
have  attempted  to  solve.  These  attempts  have  resulted,  in  some 
cases,  in  avowed  Christian  Pantheism,  as  it  is  called ;  in  others, 

1  Mystical  Presence,  edit.  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  172. 

2  Mercersburg  Review,  1850,  vol.  ii.  p.  550. 

8  Dnrner's  Christolo;/ie,Ut  edit.,  Stiittj;art,  1839,  p.  48S. 

*  "  Charakter  des  Chrisfenthums,"  Studien  uml  Kriliken,  1845,  erstes  Heft,  p.  59.  See 
aiso  a  translation  of  this  article  at  the  beginning  of  The  Mystical  Presence,  by  J.  W  .Nevin, 
D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  1846. 


§2.1  ITS  NATURE.  21 

in  forms  of  doctrine  so  nearly  pantheistic  as  to  be  hardly  distin- 
guished from  Pantheism  itself ;  and  in  all,  in  a  radical  modifica- 
tion, not  only  of  the  theology  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  hei 
received  standards,  but  also  of  the  Scriptural  form  of  Christian 
doctrines,  if  not  of  their  essence.  This  is  seen  to  be  true  in  the 
anthropology  of  this  system,  which  destroys  the  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  creator  and  his  creatures,  between  God  and 
man. 

The  christology  of  this  modern  theology  has  already  been  pre- 
sented in  its  essential  features.  There  is  no  dualism  in  Christ  as 
between  soul  and  body.  The  two  are  one  hfe.  Neither  is  there 
any  dualism  between  divinity  and  humanity  in  Him.  The  divine 
and  human  in  his  person  are  one  life.  In  being  the  ideal  or  per- 
fect man,  He  is  the  true  God.  The  deification  which  humanity 
reached  in  Christ,  is  not  a  supernatural  act  on  the  part  of  God ; 
it  is  reached  by  a  process  of  natural  development  in  his  people, 
i.  e.,  the  Church. 

Soteriology  of  these  Philosophers. 

The  soteriology  of  this  system  is  simple.  The  soul  projects 
itself  in  the  body.  They  are  one  life,  but  the  body  may  be  too 
much  for  the  soul.  The  development  of  this  one  life  in  its  two- 
fold form,  inward  and  outward,  may  not  be  symmetrical.  So 
humanity  as  a  generic  life,  a  form  of  the  life  of  God,  as  projected 
externally  in  the  world  from  Adam  onward,  has  not  developed 
itself  aright.  If  left  unaided  it  would  not  reach  the  goal,  or  un- 
fold itself  as  divine.  A  new  start,  therefore,  must  be  given  to  it, 
a  new  commencement  made.  This  is  done  by  a  supernatural 
intervention  resulting  in  the  production  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
In  Him  divinity  assumes  the  fashion  of  a  man,  —  the  existence- 
form  of  man,  —  God  becomes  man,  and  man  is  God.  This  renewed 
entrance,  so  to  speak,  of  God  into  the  world,  this  special  form  of 
divine-human  life,  is  Christianity,  which  is  constantly  declared  to 
be  "a  life,"  "the  life  of  Christ,"  "a  new  theanthropic  life." 
Men  become  Christians  by  being  partakers  of  this  life.  They 
become  partakers  of  this  life  by  union  with  the  Church  and  re- 
ception of  the  sacraments.  The  incarnation  of  God  is  continued 
in  the  Church  ;  and  this  new  principle  of  "divine-human  life  " 
descends  from  Christ  to  the  members  of  his  Church,  as  naturally 
and  as  much  by  a  process  of  organic  development,  as  humanity, 
derived  from  Adam,  unfolded  itself  in  his  descendants.  Christ, 
therefore,  saves  us,  not  so  much  by  what  He  did,  as  by  what  He  is. 


22  PAET  in.   Ch.  XV.  -  regeneration. 

He  made  no  satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice  ;  no  expiation  for 
sin  ;  no  fulfilling  of  the  law.  There  is,  therefore,  really  no  justifi- 
cation, no  real  pardon  even,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word. 
There  is  a  healing  of  the  soul,  and  Avith  that  healing  the  removal 
of  the  evils  incident  to  disease.  Those  who  become  partakers  of 
this  new  principle  of  life,  which  is  truly  human  and  truly  divine, 
"become  one  -with  Christ.  All  the  merit,  righteousness,  excellence, 
and  power,  inherent  in  this  "  divine-human  life  "  of  course  be- 
long to  those  who  partake  of  that  life.  This  righteousness,  ex- 
cellence, etc.,  are  our  own.  They  are  subjective  in  us,  and  form 
our  character,  just  as  the  nature  derived  from  Adam  was  ours, 
with  all  its  corruptions  and  infirmities. 

If  asked  what  is  regeneration  according  to  this  system,  the 
proper  answer  would  probably  be,  that  it  is  an  obsolete  term. 
There  is  no  room  for  the  thing  usually  signified  by  the  word,  and 
no  reason  for  retaining  the  word  itself.  Regeneration  is  a  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  But  this  system  in  its  integrity  does  not 
acknowledge  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  person  or  agent.  And 
those  who  are  constrained  to  make  the  acknowledgment  of  his 
personality,  are  evidently  embarrassed  by  the  admission.  What 
the  Scriptures  and  the  Church  attribute  to  the  Spirit  working 
with  the  freedom  of  a  personal  agent,  when  and  where  he  sees  fit, 
this  system  attributes  to  the  "  theanthropic-life  "  of  Christ,  w^ork- 
ing  as  a  new  force,  according  to  the  natural  laws  of  develop- 
ment.^ 

The  impression  made  upon  the  readers  of  the  modern  theolo- 
gians of  this  school,  is  that  made  by  any  other  form  of  philosoph- 
ical disquisition.  It  has  not,  and  from  its  nature  it  cannot  have 
anything  more  than  human  authority.  This  system  may  be 
adopted  as  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  it  cannot  be  an  object  of 
faith.  And  therefore  it  cannot  support  the  hopes  of  a  soul  con- 
scious of  guilt.  In  turning  from  such  writings  to  the  Word  of 
God,  the  transition  these  theologians  would  have  us  believe,  is 
from  yi'wcris  to  TTiVrts ;  but  to  the  consciousness  of  the  Christian,  it 
is  like  the  transition  from  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel, 
where  no  man  understood  his  fellow,  to  the  symphonious  utter-- 
ance  of  those  "who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

Doctrine  of  Ehrard. 

Of  the  writers  who  belong  to  the  general  class  of  "  speculative  " 
theologians,   some  adhere  much  move  nearly  to  the  Scriptures 

1  Mystical  Presence,  edit.  Philadelphia,  184G,  pp.  225-229. 


§  2.]  ITS  NATURE.  23 

than  others.  Dr.  J.  H.  A.  Ebrarcl,  of  Erlangen,  has  already 
been  reijeatedly  referred  to  as  addicted  to  the  Reformed  faith  ; 
and  where  he  consciously  departs  from  it,  he  considers  himself  as 
only  carrying  out  its  legitimate  principles.  His  "  Dogmatik  " 
has,  in  fact,  a  far  more  Scriptural  character  than  most  of  the 
modern  German  systems.  In  Ebrard,  as  in  others,  we  find  a 
compromise  attempted  between  the  Church  doctrine  of  regenera- 
tion, and  the  modern  theory  of  the  incarnation  of  God  in  the  race 
of  man.  Not  only  is  a  distinction  made  between  repentance,  con- 
version, and  regeneration ;  but  also  true  repentance  and  genuine 
conversion  are  made  to  precede  regeneration.  The  two  former 
take  place  in  the  sphere  of  the  consciousness.  In  all  the  states 
and  exercises  connected  with  repentance  and  conversion,  the  soul 
is  active  and  cooperative";  and  the  only  influence  exercised  by 
God  or  his  Spirit,  is  mediate  and  moral.  It  is  not  until  the  sin- 
ner has  obeyed  the  command  to  repent,  to  believe  in  Christ,  and 
to  return  unto  God,  that  God  gives  the  soul  that  divine  some- 
thing which  makes  it  a  new  creature,  and  effects  its  living  organic 
union  with  Christ.  In  this  latter  process  the  soul  is  simply  pas- 
sive. God  is  the  only  agent.  What  is  said  to  be  communicated 
to  the  soul  is  Christ ;  the  person  of  Christ ;  the  life  of  Christ ;  his 
substance,  or  a  new  substance.  A  distinction,  however,  is  made 
between  essence  and  substance.  Ebrard  insists  ^  that  the  most 
hidden,  substantial  germ  of  our  being  is  born  again  in  regenera- 
tion —  not  merely  changed,  but  new-born.  Nevertheless,  he  says 
that  the  "  essentia  animae  humanje  "  is  not  changed,  and  assents  to 
the  statement  by  Bucan,  "  Renovatio  fit  non  quoad  essentiam  ut 
deliravit  Illyricus,  sed  quoad  qualitates  inhjerentes."  What  he 
asserts,^  frequently  elsewhere,  is,  "  That  Christ,  real  and  substan- 
tial, is  born  in  us."  But  he  adds  that  the  words  "  real  and  sub- 
stantial" are  used  to  guard  against  the  assumption  that  regenera- 
tion consists  simply  in  some  inward  exercise,  or  transient  state  of 
the  consciousness.  It  is,  as  he  truly  teaches,  much  more  ;  some- 
thing lower  than  the  consciousness  ;  a  change  in  the  state  of  the 
soul,  which  determines  the  acts  and  exercises  which  reveal  them- 
selves in  the  consciousness,  and  manifest  themselves  in  the  life. 
He  finds  his  doctrine  of  regeneration,  not  in  what  Calvin  and 
some  few  of  the  Reformed  theologians  taught  under  that  head, 
but  in  what  they  teach  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  of  the  mystical 
union.     Calvin  ^  says,  "  Sunt  qui  manducare  Christi  carnem,  et 

1  Dogmatih,  edit.  KJinigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  320.  2  mj,,  p.  309, 

8  Imtitutio,  IV.  xvii.  6,  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  ii.  p.  403. 


24  PART  m.   Ch.  XV.  —  regeneration. 

sanguinem  ejus  bibere,  uno  verbo  definiunt,  nihil  esse  aliud,  quam 
in  Christum  ipsum  credere.  Sed  mihi  expressius  quiddam  ac 
subhmius  videtur  voluisse  docere  Christus    ....    nempe  vera 

sui  participatione  nos  vivificari Quemadmodum  enini  non 

aspectus  sed  esus  panis  corpori  alimentum  sufficit,  ita  vere  ac 
penitus  participem  Christi  animam  fieri  convenit,  ut  ipsius  virtute 
in  vitam  spiritualem  vegetetur."  "  We  have  here  certainly," 
says  Ebrard,^  "  the  doctrine  of  a  secret,  mystical  communication 
of  Christ's  substance  to  the  substantial  centre  in  man  (the 
'anima'),  which  develops  itself  on  the  one  hand  in  the  physical,  rj, 
and  on  the  other,  in  the  noetic  life."  These  writers  are  correct  ": 
in  denying  that  regeneration  is  a  mere  change  in  the  purposes, 
or  feelings,  or  conscious  states  of  any  kind  in  man  ;  and  also  in 
afiirming  that  it  involves  the  communication  of  a  new  and  abid- 
ing principle  of  life  to  the  soul.  But  they  depart  from  Scripture 
and  from  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal  in  substituting  "  the 
theanthropic  nature  of  Christ,"  " his  divine-human  hfe,"  "gen- 
eric humanity  healed  and  exalted  to  the  power  of  a  divine  life  " 
(t.  e.,  deified),  for  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  substitution  is  made 
avowedly  in  obedience  to  modern  science,  to  the  new  philoso- 
phy which  has  discovered  a  true  anthropology  and  revealed  "  the 
real  oneness  of  God  and  man."  As  already  remarked,  it  is  as- 
sumed that  this  communication  of  the  "  theanthropic  nature  of 
Christ "  carried  with  it  his  merits  as  well  as  his  blessedness  and 
power.  All  we  have  of  Christ,  we  have  within  us.  And  if  we 
can  discover  little  of  God,  and  little  God-Hke  in  our  souls,  so 
much  the  worse.  It  is  all  we  have  to  expect,  until  our  inner 
life  is  further  developed.  The  Christ  witliin  (as  some  of  the 
Friends  also  teach),  is,  according  to  this  system,  all  the  Christ 
we  have.  Ebrard,  therefore,  in  one  view  identifies  regeneration 
and  justification.  "  Regeneration,"  he  says,'^  "  as  the  act  of 
Christ,  is  the  cause  ('causa  efficiens')  of  justification;  He  com- 
municates his  life  to  us,  and  awakens  a  new  life  in  us."  This  is 
justification,  an  inward  subjective  change,  which  involves  merit 
as  well  as  hohness.  This  confounding  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration,  with  the  judicial,  objective  act  of  justifi- 
cation, belongs  to  the  system.  At  least  it  is  only  on  the  ground 
of  this  infused  life  that  we  are  pronounced  righteous  in  the  sight 
of  God.  What  we  receive  is  "  the  real  divine-human  life  of 
Christ,"  and  "  whatever  there  may  be  of  merit,  virtue,  efiicacy, 
or  moral  value  in  any  way,  in  the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  it 

1  Dogmatik,  vol.  ii.  p.  310.  2  JUd.  p.  315. 


§2.]  ITS   NATURE.  25 

is  all  lodged  in  the  life,  by  tlie  power  of  which  a'/one  this  work 
has  been  accomphshed,  and  in  the  presence  of  which  only  it  can 
have  either  reality  or  stability.  The  imagination  that  the  merits 
of  Christ's  hfe  may  be  sundered  from  his  life  itself,  and  conveyed 
over  to  his  p»  ople  under  this  abstract  form,  on  the  ground  of  a 
merely  outwari.'  legal  constitution,  is  unscriptural  and  contrary  to 
all  reason  at  the  same  time."  ^  Regeneration  consisting  in  the 
communicating  the  hfe  of  Christ,  his  substance,  to  the  soul,  and 
this  divine-human  life  comprehending  all  the  merit,  virtue,  or 
efficacy  belonging  to  Christ  and  his  work,  —  regeneration  involves 
justification,  of  which  it  is  the  ground  and  the  cause. 

Doeti'ine  of  Delitzsch. 

Delitzsch  devotes  one  division  of  his  "  Bibhcal  Psychology  "  to 
the  subject  of  regeneration.  He  begins  the  discussion  with  a  dis- 
course on  Christ's  person.  "  When  we  wish  to  consider  the  new 
spiritual  hfe  of  the  redeemed  man,  we  proceed  from  the  divine 
human  archetype,  the  person  of  the  Redeemer."  ^  Man  was,  as 
to  his  spirit  and  soul,  originally  constituted  in  the  image  of  God ; 
the  spirit  was  the  image  "of  His  triune  nature  and  the  latter  [the 
soul]  of  His  sevenfold  'doxa.'  "  Man  was  free  to  conform  his  life 
to  the  sjoirit,  or  divine  principle  witliin  him,  or  to  allow  the  con- 
trol of  his  life  to  be  assumed  by  the  soul.  Utter  ruin  was  the 
consequence  of  the  fall.  This  could  be  corrected  and  man  re- 
deemed only  by  "a  new  beginning  of  similar  creative  intensity."^ 
This  new  beginning  was  effected  in  the  incarnation.  The  Son  of 
God  became  man,  not  by  assuming  our  nature,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  those  words,  but  by  ceasing  to  be  almighty,  omniscient, 
and  omnipresent,  and  contracting  Himself  to  the  limits  of  human- 
ity. It  was  a  human  life  into  which  He  thus  entered;  a  life 
including  a  spirit,  soul,  and  body.  There  is  no  dualism  in  Christ's 
person,  as  between  the  corporeal  and  spiritual,  or  between  the 
human  and  divine.  It  is  the  divine  nature  in  the  form  of  human- 
ity, or  this  divine-human  nature,  which  is  purely  and  simply, 
though  perfectly,  human,  which  is  communicated  to  the  people  of 
God  in  their  regeneration.  To  this  fellowship  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  faith  is  indispensable,  and  therefore  Ebrard  says,  infants 
cannot  be  the  subjects  of  regeneration,  wliile  Delitzsch,  a  Lu- 
theran, maintains  that  infants  are  capable  of  exercising  faith,  and 

1  Mystical  Presence,  by  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  191. 

2  A   System  of  Biblical  Psychology,  by  Franz  Delitzsch,  D.  D.,  translated  by  E.  E. 
Wallis,  Ph.  D. ;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1867,  p.  381. 

3  Md.  p.  382. 


26  PART  m.  Ch.  XV.  —  regeneration. 

therefore  are  capable  of  being  regenerated.  "What  is  received 
from  Christ,  or  that  of  which  his  people  are  made  partakers,  is 
"  the  Spirit,  the  soul,  the  body  of  Christ."  ^  The  new  man,  or 
second  Adam,  was  made  a  "  life-giving  spirit,"  and  gradually 
subdues  the  old  man,  or  our  Adamic  nature,  and  brings  the 
whole  man  (^nrevfia,  \pvxrj,  and  o-w/ia),  spirit,  soul,  and  body,  up  to 
the  standard  of  the  life  of  Christ,  in  whom  the  di^dne  and  hu- 
man are  merged  into  one,  or  rather  appear  in  their  original  one- 
ness. 

The  communication  of  the  theanthropic  life  to  the  soul  is  an 
act  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  which  we  have  neither  agency  nor  con- 
sciousness, Delitzsch  infers  from  what  our  Lord  said  to  Nicode- 
mus,  John  iii.  that  "  The  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  regeneration 
is,  therefore,  (1.)  A  free  one,  withdra^vn  from  the  power  of  hu- 
man voKtion,  of  human  special  agency.  (2.)  A  mysterious  one, 
lying  beyond  human  consciousness,  and  only  to  be  recognized  by 
its  effects."  ^  "  It  is  peculiar  to  all  God's  creative  agencies,  that 
the  creature  which  is  thereby  brought  into  existence,  or  in  which 
this  or  that  is  brought  into  existence,  has  no  consciousness  of  what 
is  occurring."  ^ 

Various  as  are  the  modifications  of  this  doctrine  as  presented 
by  different  writers  of  this  general  school,  regeneration  is  by  all  \ 
of  them  understood  to  be  the  communication  of  the  life  of  Christ  ^ 
to  the  soul.  By  the  life  of  Christ  is  meant  his  manliood,  his  hu- 
man nature,  which  was  at  the  same  time  divine,  and  therefore  is 
theanthropic.  It  may  be  called  human,  and  it  may  be  called 
divine,  for  although  being  one,  one  life,  it  is  truly  divine  by  being 
perfectly  human.  We  are  all  partakers  of  humanity  as  polluted 
and  degraded  by  the  apostasy  of  Adam.  Christ,  or  rather,  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God,  assumed  human  nature,  in  that  He  became 
man,  and  being  God,  humanity  in  Him  was  filled  with  the  treas- 
ures of  wisdom  and  knowledge  and  grace  and  power  ;  of  that  hu- 
manity we  must  partake  in  order  to  have  any  part  in  the  salva- 
tion of  Christ.  The  communication  of  this  life  to  us,  which  is  our 
regeneration,  is  through  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  because 
animated  by  his  human  life.  As  we  derive  our  deteriorated 
humanity  by  descent  from  Adam,  we  are  made  partakers  of  this 
renovated,  divine  humanity  by  union  with  the  Church,  in  which 
Christ  as  a  man,  and  God-man,  lives  and  dwells.     And  as  the 

1  A  Sy stein  of  Biblical  Psychology,  by  Franz  Delitzsch,  D.  D.,  translated  by  R.  £ 
Wallis,  Ph.  D. ;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1867,  p.  398. 
a  Ibid.  p.  402,  8  Hid.  p,  403. 


§2.]  ITS  NATURE.  27 

communication  of  humanity  as  it  existed  in  fallen  Adam  to  his 
descendants  is  by  a  natural  process  of  organic  development ;  so 
the  communication  of  the  renovated  humanity  as  it  exists  in 
Christ,  to  his  people,  and  through  the  world,  is  also  a  natural 
process.  It  supposes  no  special  interference  or  intervention  on 
the  part  of  God,  any  more  than  any  other  organic  development 
in  the  vegetable  or  animal  world.  The  only  thing  supernatural 
about  it  is  the  starting  point  in  Christ. 

Doctrine  of  the  Latin  Church. 

In  the  later  Latin  Church  the  word  regeneration  is  used  as 
synonymous  with  justification,  and  is  taken  in  a  mde  sense  as 
including  everything  involved  in  the  translation  of  the  soul  from 
the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son. 
In  regeneration  the  sinner  becomes  a  child  of  God.  It  is  made 
therefore,  to  include,  (1.)  The  removal  of  the  "reatus  "  or  guiH 
of  sm.  (2.)  The  cleansing  away  of  inherent  moral  corruption 
(3.)  The  "infusion  of  new  habits  of  gi-ace;"  and  (4.)  Adop- 
tion, or  recognition  of  the  renewed  as  sons  of  God.  The  Council 
of  Trent  says,i  "  Justificatio  ....  non  est  sola  peccatorum  remis- 
sio,^  sed  et  sanctificatio,  et  renovatio  interioris  hominis  per  volun- 
tariam  susceptionem  gratise,  et  donorum,  unde  homo  ex  hijusto 
fit  Justus,  et  ex  inimico  amicus,  ut  sit  heres  secundum  spem  vitc^ 
ffiternje."  The  instrumental  cause  of  justification  in  tliis  sense, 
is  declared  to  be  "  sacramentum  baptismi,  quod  est  sacramentum 
fidei,  sine  qua  nulli  umquam  contigit  justificatio."  As  to  the 
efPect  of  baptism,  it  is  taught  2  that  it  takes  away  not  only  guilt, 
but  everything  of  the  nature  of  sm,  and  communicates  a  new  life. 
"  Si  quis  per  Jesu  Christi  Domini  gratiam ;  qure  in  baptismate 
confertur,  reatum  originahs  peccati  remitti  negat,  aut  etiam  as- 
sent, non  tolH  totum  id,  quod  veram,  et  propriam  peccati  ra- 
tionem  habet ;  sed  illud  dicit  tantum  radi,  aut  non  imputari: 
anathema  sit.  In  renatis  enim  nihil  odit  Deus,  quia  nihil  est 
damnationis  iis  qui  vere  consepulti  sunt  cum  Christo  per  baptisma 
m  mortem  :  qui  non  secundum  carnem  ambulant,  sed  veterem 
hominem  exuentes,  et  novum,  qui  secundum  Deum  creatus  est, 
mduentes,  innocentes,  immaculati,  puri,  innoxii,  ac  Deo  dilecti 
effecti  sunt,  heredes  quidem  Dei,  coheredes  autem  Christi,  ita  ut 
nihil  prorsus  eos  ab  ingressu  coeli  remoretur."  * 

1  Sessio  vi.  cap.  7.  2  /jv        r 

«  Streitwolf,  Lihri  SymboUci,  Gottingen,  1846,  pp.  24,  25,  19. 


28  PART  ni.   Ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

Regeneration,  therefore,  as  effected  in  baptism,  is  the  removal 
of  the  guilt  and  poUution  of  sin,  the  infusion  of  new  habits 
of  gi-ace,  and  introduction  into  the  family  of  God.  It  is  in 
baptism  that  all  the  benefits  of  the  redemption  of  Christ  are 
conveyed  to  the  soul,  and  this  is  its  regeneration  or  birth  into 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England. 

1.  There  has  always  been  a  class  of  theologians  in  the  English 
Church  who  hold  the  theology  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  its  lead- 
ing characteristics.  They  accept,  therefore,  the  definition  of 
regeneration,  or  justification,  as  they  call  it,  as  given  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  quoted  above. 

2.  Others  make  a  distinction  between  conversion  and  regener- 
ation. The  latter  is  that  grace  which  attends  baptism,  and  as 
that  sacrament  without  sacrilege  cannot  be  repeated,  so  regenera- 
tion can  be  experienced  only  once.  Cojiversion  is  "  a  change  of 
heart  and  life  from  sin  to  holiness."  "  To  the  heathen  and  infi- 
del conversion  is  absolutely  and  always  necessary  to  salvation."  j 
To  the  baptized  Christian  conversion  is  not  always  necessary. 
"  Some  persons  have  confused  conversion  with  regeneration,  and 
have  taught  that  all  men,  the  baptized,  and  therefore  in  fact  re- 
generate, must  be  regenerated  afterwards,  or  they  cannot  be 
saved.  Now  this  is  in  many  ways  false  :  for  regeneration,  which 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  has  connected  with  holy  baptism, 
cannot  be  repeated :  moreover,  not  all  men  (though  indeed  most 
men  do)  fall  into  such  sin  after  baptism,  that  conversion,  or  as 
they  term  it,  regeneration,  is  necessary  to  their  salvation  ;  and  if 
a  regeneration  were  necessary  to  them,  it  could  only  be  obtained 
through  repetition  of  baptism,  which  were  an  act  of  sacrilege." 
"  They  who  object  to  the  expression  baptismal  regeneration,  by 
regeneration  mean,  for  the  most  part,  the  first  influx  of  irresisti- 
ble and  indefectible  gi-ace ;  grace  that  cannot  be  repelled  by  its 
subject,  and  which  must  issue  in  its  final  salvation.  Noav,  of 
such  grace  our  Church  knows  nothing,  and  of  course,  therefore, 
means  not  by  regeneration  at  baptism,  the  first  influx  of  such 
grace.  That  the  sins,  original  and  actual,  of  the  faithful  recipi- 
ent of  baptism,  are  washed  away,  she  doth  indeed  believe ; 
and  also  that  grace  is  given  to  him  by  the  immediate  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  yet  so  that  the  conscience  thus  cleansed  may  be 
again  defiled,  and  that  the  baptized  person  may,  and  often  does, 
by  his  own  fault,  fall  again  into  sin,  in  which  if  he  die  he  shall 


§3.J  THE   EVANGELICAL   DOCTRINE.  29 

witlioat  doubt  perish  everlastingly  ;  liis  condemnation  not  being 
avoided,  but  rather  increased,  by  his  baptismal  privilege."  ^ 

3.  A  third  form  of  doctrine  on  this  subject,  held  by  some  di- 
vines of  this  church,  is  that  regeneration  properly  expresses  an 
external  change  of  relation,  and  not  an  internal  change  of  the 
state  of  the  soul  and  of  its  relation  to  God.  As  a  proselyte 
was  regenerated  when  he  professed  himself  a  Jew,  so  any  one  in- 
itiated into  the  visible  Church  is  thereby  regenerated.  Tliis  is 
held  to  be  entirely  different  from  spiritual  renovation.  Regener- 
ation, in  this  outward  sense,  is  admitted  to  be  by  baptism  ;  ren- 
ovation is  by  the  Spirit. 

4.  A  large  class  of  English  theologians  have  ever  remained 
faithful  to  the  evangelical  doctrine  on  this  subject,  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  Reformers  m  their  Church,  who  were  in 
full  sympathy  both  in  doctrine  and  in  ecclesiastical  and  Christian 
fellowship  with  other  Protestant  churches. 

§  3.   The  Evangelical  Doctrine. 

In  the  Lutheran  Symbols  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration,  which 
is  made  to  include  conversion,  is  thus  stated  :  "  Conversio  hominis 
talis  est  immutatio,  per  operationem  Spiritus  Sancti,  in  hominis 
intellectu,  voluntate  et  corde,  qua  homo  (operatione  videlicet 
Spiritus  Sancti)  potest  oblatam  gratiam  apprehendere."  ^ 

"  Hominis  autem  nondum  renati  intellectus  et  voluntas  tantum 
sunt  subjectum  convertendum,  sunt  enim  hominis  spiritualiter 
mortui  intellectus  et  voluntas,  in  quo  homine  Spiritus  Sanctus 
conversionem  et  renovationem  operatur,  ad  quod  opus  hominis 
convertendi  voluntas  nihil  confert,  sed  patitur,  ut  Deus  in  ipsa 
operetur,  donee  regeneretur.  Postea  vero  in  aliis  sequentibus 
bonis  operibus  Spiritui  Sancto  cooperatur,  ea  faciens,  quse  Deo 
grata  sunt."  ^ 

"  Sicut  igitur  homo,  qui  corporaliter  mortuus  est,  seipsum  pro- 
priis  viribus  praparare  aut  accommodare  non  potest,  ut  vitara 
externam  recipiat :  ita  homo  spiritualiter  in  peccatis  mortuus, 
seipsum  propriis  viribus  ad  consequendam  spiritualem  et  coelestem 
justitiam  et  vitam  pra3parare,  applicare,  aut  vertere  non  potest, 
nisi  per  Filium  Dei  a  morte  peccati  liberetur  et  vivificetur."  ^ 

"  Rejicimus  errorem  eorum  qui  fingimt,  Deum  in  conversione  et 
regeneratione  hominis  substantiam  et  essentiam  veteris  Adami,  et 

1  A  Church  Dictionary,  by  Walter'Farquhar  Hook,  D.  D.,  Vicar  of  Leeds,  article  "  Con- 
version"; 6th  edition,  Philadelphia,  1854. 
<«  Form  of  Concord,  ii.  83.  8  Jhid.  91.  4  /jj,;.  jj. 


30  PART  m.   ch.  XV.  —  regeneration. 

prseclpue  animam  rationalem  penitus  abolere,  novamque  animae 
essentiam  ex  niliilo,  in  ilia  conversione  et  regeneratione  creare."^ 

With  these  statements  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Symbols  and 
by  the  theologians  of  the  Reformed  churches,  perfectly  agree.  It 
is  sufficient  to  quote  the  standards  of  our  own  Church.  The 
"  Westminster  Confession  "  says,  "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state 
of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  -svill  to  any  spiritual  good 
accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man  being  altogether 
averse  from  that  wliich  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by 
his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  there- 
unto." "  When  God  converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the 
state  of  grace.  He  freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin, 
and  by  his  grace  alone  enables  him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that 
which  is  spiritually  good."  "  All  those  whom  God  hath  predes- 
tinated unto  hfe,  and  those  only.  He  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed 
and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  Word  and  Spirit, 
out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to 
grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds, 
spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking 
away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of 
flesh ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  Almighty  power,  deter- 
mining them  to  that  which  is  good,  and  effectually  dr-awing  them 
to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made 
willing  by  his  grace."  "  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and 
special  grace  alone,  not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who 
is  altogether  passive  therein,  until  being  quickened  and  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and 
embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it."  ^ 

The  Larger  Catechism  ^  says,  "  What  is  effectual  calling  ? 
Effectual  calling  is  the  work  of  God's  almighty  power  and  grace, 
whereby  (out  of  his  free  and  esj^ecial  love  to  his  elect,  and  from 
nothing  in  them  moving  Him  thereunto)  He  doth  in  his  accepted 
time  invite  and  draw  them  to  Jesus  Christ  by  his  Word  and  Spirit ; 
savingly  enlightening  their  minds,  renewing  and  powerfully  de- 
termining their  wills,  so  as  they  (although  in  themselves  dead  in 
sin)  are  hereby  made  wilhng  and  able,  freely  to  ansAver  his  call,  • 
and  to  accept  and  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  there- 
in." 

JExposition  of  the  Doctrine. 

According  to  the  common  doctrine  of  Protestants,  i.  e.,  of 
Lutherans  and  Reformed,  as  appears  from  the  above  quotations,  — 

1  Ilnd.  U  ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolid,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1836,  pp.  679,  681,  658,  581. 
«  IX.  3,  4;  X.  1,  2.  2  Question  67. 


§3.]  THE  EVANGELICAL  DOCTRINE.  31 

Regeneration  an  Act  of  Crod. 

1.  Regeneration  is  an  act  of  God.  It  is  not  simply  referred  to 
Him  as  its  giver,  and,  in  that  sense,  its  author,  as  He  is  the  giver 
of  faith  and  of  repentance.  It  is  not  an  act  which,  by  argument 
and  persuasion,  or  by  moral  power.  He  induces  the  sinner  to  per- 
form. But  it  is  an  act  of  which  He  is  the  agent.  It  is  God  who 
regenerates.  The  soul  is  regenerated.  In  this  sense  the  soul  is 
passive  in  regeneration,  which  (subjectively  considered)  is  a 
change  wi'ought  in  us,  and  not  an  act  performed  by  us. 

Regeneration  an  Act  of  Crod\s  Power. 

2.  Regeneration  is  not  only  an  act  of  God,  but  also  an  act  of 
his  almighty  power.  Agreeably  to  the  express  declarations  of  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  so  presented  in  the  Symbols  of  the  Protestant 
churches.  If  an  act  of  omnipotence,  it  is  certainly  efficacious,  for 
nothing  can  resist  almighty  power.  The  Lutherans  indeed  deny 
this.  But  the  more  orthodox  of  them  mean  simply  that  the 
sinner  can  keep  himself  aloof  from  the  means  through  which,  or, 
rather,  in  connection  with  which  it  pleases  God  to  exercise  his 
power.  He  can  absent  himself  from  the  preaching  of  the  Word,' 
and  the  use  of  the  sacraments.  Or  he  may  voluntarily  place 
himself  in  such  an  inward  posture  of  resistance  as  determines 
God  not  to  exert  his  power  in  his  regeneration.  The  assertion 
that  regeneration  is  an  act  of  God's  omnipotence,  is,  and  is  in- 
tended to  be,  a  denial  that  it  is  an  act  of  moral  suasion.  It  is  an 
affirmation  that  it  is  "  physical "  in  the  old  sense  of  that  word, 
as  opposed  to  moral ;  and  that  it  is  immediate,  as  opposed  to 
mediate,  or  through  or  by  the  truth.  When  either  in  Scripture 
or  in  theological  writings,  the  word  regeneration  is  taken  in  a 
wide  sense  as  including  conversion  or  the  voluntary  turning  of  the 
soul  to  God,  then  indeed  it  is  said  to  be  by  the  Word.  The  resto- 
ration of  sight  to  the  blind  by  the  command  of  Christ,  was  an  act 
of  omnipotence.  It  was  immediate.  Nothing  in  the  way  of  in- 
strumentary  or  secondary  cooperating  influence  intervened  be- 
tween the  divine  volition  and  the  effect.  But  all  exercises  of  the 
restored  faculty  were  through  and  by  the  light.  And  without 
light  sight  is  impossible.  Raising  Lazarus  from  the  dead  was  an 
act  of  omnipotence.  Nothing  intervened  between  the  volition 
and  the  effect.  The  act  of  quickening  was  the  act  of  God.  In 
that  matter  Lazarus  was  passive.  But  in  all  the  acts  of  the 
restored  vitality,  he  was  active  and  free.    According  to  the  evan- 


\i 


82  PART  in.   Ch.  XV.  —  regeneration. 

gelical  system  it  is  in  this  sense  that  regeneration  is  the  act  of 
God's  ahnighty  power.  Nothing  intervenes  between  his  volition 
that  the  soul,  spiritually  dead,  should  live,  and  the  desired  effect. 
But  in  all  that  belongs  to  the  consciousness  ;  all  that  precedes  or 
follows  the  imparting  of  this  new  life,  the  soul  is  active  and  is 
influenced  by  the  truth  acting  according  to  the  laws  of  our  mental 
constitution. 

Regeneration  in  the  Subjective  Sense  of  the  Word  not  an  Act. 

3.  Regeneration,  subjectively  considered,  or  viewed  as  an  effect 
or  change  wrought  in  the  soul,  is  not  an  act.  It  is  not  a  new 
purpose  created  by  God  (if  that  language  be  intelligible),  or 
formed  by  the  sinner  under  his  influence.  Nor  is  it  any  conscious 
exercise  of  any  kind.  It  is  something  which  lies  lower  than  con- 
sciousness. 

Not  a  Change  of  Substance. 

4.  It  is  not,  however,  according  to  the  Church  doctrine,  any 
'Change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul.  This  is  rejected  universally 
as  Maniclieism,  and  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  sin  and 
holiness.  It  is,  indeed,  often  assumed  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
soul  but  its  substance  and  its  acts  ;  and,  therefore,  if  regenera- 
tion be  not  a  change  in  the  acts,  it  must  be  a  change  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  soul.  This  assumption,  however,  is  not  only  arbi- 
trary, but  it  is  also  opposed  to  the  intimate  convictions  of  all 
men.  That  is,  of  all  men  in  their  normal  state,  when  not  specu- 
lating or  theorizing.  That  such  is  the  common  judgment  of  men 
has  already  been  proved  under  the  heads  of  original  righteousness 
and  original  sin.  Every  one  recognizes,  in  the  first  place,  that 
such  constitutional  principles  as  parental  love,  the  social  affec- 
tions, a  sense  of  justice,  pity,  etc.,  are  immanent  states  of  the 
soul  which  can  be  resolved  neither  into  its  essence  nor  acts.  So 
also  acquired  habits  are  similar  permanent  and  immanent  states 
which  are  not  acts,  much  less  modifications  or  changes  of  the 
essence.  The  same  is  true  of  dispositions,  amiable  and  unamia- 
ble.  The  refinement  of  taste  and  feeling  due  to  education  and 
culture,  is  not  a  change  in  the  essence  of  the  mind.  It  canno.t 
reasonably  be  denied  that  a  state  of  mind  produced  by  culture, 
may  be  produced  by  the  volition  of  God.  What  is  true  in  every 
other  department  of  our  inner  life,  is  true  of  our  moral  and  re- 
ligious nature.  Besides  those  acts  and  states  which  reveal  them- 
selves in  the  consciousness,  there  are  abiding  states,  dispositions, 
principles,  or  habits,  as  they  are  indifferently  called,  which  con 


§3.]  THE  EVANGELICAL  DOCTRINE.  33 

stitute  character  and  give  it  stability,  and  are  the  proximate, 
determining  cause  why  our  vohmtary  exercises  and  conscious 
states  are  what  they  are.  This  is  what  the  Bible  calls  the  heart, 
which  has  the  same  relation  to  all  our  acts  that  the  nature  of  a 
tree,  as  good  or  bad,  has  to  the  character  of  its  fruit.  A  good 
tree  is  known  to  be  good  if  its  fruit  be  good.  But  the  goodness 
of  the  fruit  does  not  constitute  or  determine  the  goodness  of  the 
tree,  but  the  reverse.  In  like  manner,  it  is  not  good  acts  which 
make  the  man  good ;  the  goodness  of  the  man  determines  the  char- 
acter of  his  acts. 

It  is  a  New  Life. 

5.  While  denying  that  regeneration  is  a  change  either  in  the 
essence  or  acts  of  the  soul,  evangelical  Christians  declare  it  to  be, 
in  the  language  of  Scripture,  "  a  quickening,"  a  (oioiroielv,  a  com- 
munication of  a  new  principle  of  life.  It  is  hard,  perhaps  impos- 
sible, to  define  what  life  is.  Yet  every  man  is  familiar  with  its 
manifestations.  He  sees  and  knows  the  difference  between  death 
and  life,  between  a  dead  and  living  plant  or  animal.  And,  there- 
fore, when  the  Bible  tells  us  that  in  regeneration  God  imparts  a 
new  form  of  life  to  the  soul,  the  language  is  as  intelligible  as 
human  language  can  be  in  relation  to  such  a  subject.  We  know 
that  when  a  man  is  dead  as  to  the  body  he  neither  sees,  feels, 
nor  acts.  The  objects  adapted  to  impress  the  senses  of  the  living 
make  no  impression  upon  him.  They  awaken  no  corresponding 
feeling,  and  they  call  forth  no  activity.  The  dead  are  insensible 
and  powerless.  When  the  Scriptures  declare  that  men  are  spir- 
itually dead  they  do  not  deny  to  them  physical,  intellectual, 
social,  or  moral  life.  They  admit  that  the  objects  of  sense,  the 
truths  of  reason,  our  social  relations  and  moral  obligations,  are 
more  or  less  adequately  apprehended  ;  these  do  not  fail  to  awaken 
feeling  and  to  excite  to  action.  But  there  is  a  higher  class  of 
objects  than  these,  what  the  Bible  calls  "  The  things  of  God," 
"  The  things  of  the  Spirit,"  "  The  things  pertaining  to  salva- 
tion." These  things,  although  intellectually  apprehended  as 
presented  to  our  cognitive  faculties,  are  not  spiritually  discerned 
by  the  unrenewed  man.  A  beautiful  object  in  nature  or  art  may 
be  duly  apprehended  as  an  object  of  vision  by  an  uncultivated 
man,  who  has  no  perception  of  its  sesthetic  excellence,  and  nu 
corresponding  feeling  of  delight  in  its  contemplation.  So  it  is 
with  the  unrenewed  man.  He  may  have  an  intellectual  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  but  no  spiritual  dis- 
cernment of  their  excellence,  and  no  delight  in  them.     The  same 


34  PART  in.   ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

Christ,  as  portrayed  in  tlie  Scriptures,  is  to  one  man  witliout 
form  or  comeliness  that  we  should  desire  Him ;  to  another  He  is 
the  chief  among  ten  thousand  and  the  one  altogether  lovely ; 
"  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  whom  it  is  impossible  not  to  adore, 
love,  and  obey. 

This  new  life,  therefore,  manifests  itself  in  new  views  of  God, 
of  Christ,  of  sin,  of  holiness,  of  the  world,  of  the  gospel,  and  of 
the  life  to  come  ;  in  short,  of  all  those  truths  which  God  has  re- 
vealed as  necessary  to  salvation.  This  spiritual  illumination  is 
so  imj)ortant  and  so  necessary  and  such  an  immediate  effect  of  re- 
generation, that  spiritual  knowledge  is  not  only  represented  in  the 
Bible  as  the  end  of  regeneration  (Col.  iii.  10 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  4),  but 
the  whole  of  conversion  (which  is  the  effect  of  regeneration)  is 
summed  up  in  knowledge.  Paul  describes  his  conversion  as  con- 
sisting in  Christ's  being  revealed  to  Him  (Gal.  i.  16)  ;  and  the 
Scriptures  make  all  religion,  and  even  eternal  life,  to  be  a  form 
of  knowledge.  Paul  renoimced  everything  for  the  excellency  of 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  (Phil.  iii.  8),  and  our  Lord  says  that 
the  knowledge  of  Himself  and  of  the  Father  is  eternal  life. 
(John  xvii.  3).  The  whole  process  of  salvation  is  described  as 
a  translation  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of 
/  light.  There  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  ancients  called 
\  regeneration  a  (^(^tlo-jjo?,  an  illumination.  If  a  man  born  blind 
were  suddenly  restored  to  sight,  such  a  flood  of  knowledge  and 
delight  would  floAV  in  upon  him,  through  the  organ  of  vision,  that 
he  might  well  think  that  all  living  consisted  in  seeing.  So  the 
New  Testament  writers  represent  the  change  consequent  on 
regeneration,  the  opening  the  eyes  on  the  certainty,  glory,  and 
excellence  of  divine  things,  and  especially  of  the  revelation  of 
God  in  the  person  of  his  Son,  as  comprehending  almost  every- 
thing which  pertains  to  spiritual  life.  Inseparably  connected 
with  this  knowledge  and  included  in  it,  is  faith,  in  all  the  forms 
and  exercises  in  which  spiritual  truths  are  its  objects.  Delight 
in  the  things  thus  revealed  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  spirit- 
ual illummation ;  and  with  delight  come  satisfaction  and  peace, 
elevation  above  the  world,  or  spiritual  mindedness,  and  such  a 
sense  of  the  importance  of  the  things  not  seen  and  eternal,  that 
all  the  energies  of  the  renewed  soul  are  (or,  it  is  acknowledged, 
they  should  be)  devoted  to  securing  them  fcr  ourselves  and 
others. 

This  is  one  of  the  forms  in  which  the  Bible  sets  forth  the  doc- 
trine of  regeneration.     It  is  raising  the  soul  dead  in  sin  to  spiritual 


§3.]  THE  EVANGELICAL   DOCTHINE.  85 

life.    And  this  spiritual  life  unfolds  or  manifests  itself  just  as  any 
other  form  of  life,  in  all  the  exercises  appropriate  to  its  nature. 

It  is  a  New  Birth. 
The  same  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  taught  in  other  words 
when  regeneration  is  declared  to  be  a  new  birth.  At  birth  the 
child  enters  upon  a  ,naw^.state  of .  exi.ste^^  Birth  is  not  its  own 
act.  It  is  born.  It  comes  from  a  state  of  darkness,  in  Avhich  the 
objects  adapted  to  its  nature  cannot  act  on  it  or  awaken  its  activ- 
ities. As  soon  as  it  comes  into  the  world  all  its  faculties  are 
awakened  ;  it  sees,  feels,  and  hears,  and  gradually  unfolds  all  its 
faculties  as  a  rational  and  moral,  as  well  as  physical  being.  The 
Scriptures  teach  that  it  is  thus  in  regeneration.  The  soul  enters 
upon  a  ngiSL-state.  It  is  introduced  into  a  new  world.  A  whole 
class  of  objects  before  unlaiown  or  unappreciated  are  revealed  to 
it,  and  exercise  upon  it  their  appropriate  influence.  The  "  things 
of  the  Spirit  "  become  the  chief  objects  of  desire  and  pursuit,  and 
all  the  enero;ies  of  the  new-born  soul  are  directed  towards  the 
spiritual,  as  distinguished  from  the  seen  and  temporal.  This 
representation  is  in  accordance  with  the  evangelical  doctrine  on 
this  subject.  It  is  not  consistent  with  any  of  the  false  theories 
of  regeneration,  which  regard  regeneration  as  the  sinner's  own 
act ;  as  a  mere  change  of  purpose  ;  or  as  a  gradual  process  of 
moral  culture. 

A  New  Heart. 

Another  mode  in  which  this  doctrine  is  set  forth  is  found  in 
those  passages  in  which  God  is  represented  as  giving  his  people 
a  new  heart.  The  heart  in  Scripture  is  that  which  thinks,  feels, 
wills,  and  acts.  /It  is  the^soul ;  the  self.  A  new  heart  is,  there- 
fore^  a  new  seH.  a  new  man.  It  implies  a  change  of  the  whole 
character.  It  is  a  new  nature.  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  all 
conscious,  voluntary ^  moral  exercises.  A  change  of  heart,  there- 
fore, is  a  change  which  precedes  these  exercises  and  determines 
their  character.  A  new  heart  is  to  a  man  what  goodness  is  to 
the  tree  in  the  parable  of  our  Lord. 

In  regeneration,  therefore,  there  is  a  new  life  communicated  to 
the  soul ;  the  man  is  the  subject  of  a  new  birth  ;  he  receives  a 
new  nature  or  new  heart,  and  becomes  a  new  creature.  As  the 
change  is  neither  in  the  substance  nor  in  the  mere  exercises  of  tlie 
soul,  it  is  in  those  immanent  dispositions,  principles,  tastes,  or 
habits  which  underlie  all  conscious  exercises,  and  determine  the 
character  ot  the  man  and  of  all  his  acts. 


36  PART  m.  ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

The  wJiole  Soul  the  Subject  of  this  change. 

6.  According  to  the  evangelical  doctrine  the  whole  soul  is  the 
subject  of  regeneration.  .  It  is  neither  the  intellect  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  feelings,  nor  the  feelings  to  the  exclusion  of  the  intel- 
lect ;  nor  is  it  the  will  alone,  either  in  its  wider  or  in  its  more 
Hmifced  sense,  that  is  the  subject  of  the  change  in  question.  This 
is  evident,  — 

(1.)  Because  the  soul  is  a  unit,  and  is  so  recognized  in  Scrip- 
ture. Its  faculties  are  not  so  dissociated  that  one  can  be  good 
and  another  bad,  one  saved  and  another  lost,  one  active  in  the 
sphere  of  morals  and  religion  and  the  others  inactive.  In  ev- 
ery such  exercise  the  intelligence,  the  feelings,  the  ^vill,  and  the 
conscience,  or  moral  consciousness,  are  of  necessity  involved. 

(2.)  In  the  description  of  this  work  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul 
are  represented  as  affected.  The  mind  is  illuminated,  the  eyes  of 
the  understanding  are  opened  ;  the  heart  is  renewed  ;  the  will  is 
conquered,  or,  the  man  is  made  willing. 

(3.)  When  Lazarus  was  restored  to  life,  it  was  not  one  member 
of  the  body,  or  one  faculty  that  received  the  vivifying  influence. 
It  was  not  the  heart  that  was  set  in  motion,  the  brain  and  lungs 
being  restored  by  its  action.  It  was  the  whole  man  that  was 
made  alive.     And  it  is  the  whole  soul  that  is  regenerated. 

(4.)  This  is  further  evident  from  the  effects  ascribed  to  regen- 
eration. These  effects  are  not  confined  to  any  one  department 
of  our  nature.  Regeneration  secures  right  knowledge  as  well  as 
right  feeling ;  and  right  feeling  is  not  the  effect  of  right  knowl- 
edge, nor  is  right  knowledge  the  effect  of  right  feeling.  The  two 
are  the  inseparable  effects  of  a  work  which  affects  the  whole 
soul. 

(5.)  When  our  Loi'd  teaches  that  the  tree  must  be  made  good 
in  order  that  the  fruit  should  be  good,  it  was  not  any  one  part 
of  the  tree  which  must  be  changed,  but  the  whole  tree.  In  like 
manner  it  is  the  soul,  in  the  centre  and  unity  of  its  hfe,  that  is 
the  subject  of  that  life-giving  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which 
it  becomes  a  new  creature.  The  doctrine  that  regeneration  is  a 
change  affecting  only  one  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul  has  its  foun- 
dation entirely  outside  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  simply  an  infer- 
ence from  a  particular  psychological  theory,  and  has  no  authoritv 
in  theolop"v. 


§  4.]  OBJECTIONS.  37 

§  4.    Objections. 
The  same  objections  which  are  urged  against  other  doctrines 
of  grace  are  pressed  against  the  Augustinian  view  of  the  nature 
of  regeneration.     These  objections  are  of  tlu-ee  classes. 

Denial  of  Super  naturalism. 

1.  The  first  class  of  objections  are  founded  on  the  denial  of 
Theism  ;  or  at  least  on  the  denial  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of 
the  relation  of  God  to  the  world.  It  is  an  assumption  com- 
mon to  most  of  the  forms  of  modern  philosophy  that  the  only 
agency  of  the  Supreme  Being  (whether  personal  or  impersonal) 
is  according  to  law.  It  is  ordered,  uniform,  and  in,  with,  and 
through  second  causes,  if  such  causes  are  admitted.  Everything 
is  natural,  and  nothing  supernatural,  either  in  the  outward  world 
or  in  the  sphere  of  things  spiritual.  There  can  be  no  creation 
"  ex  nihilo,"  no  miracles,  no  immediate  revelation,  no  inspiration 
in  the  church  sense  of  that  term ;  no  supernatural  work  upon  the 
heart,  and  therefore  no  regeneration  in  the  sense  of  an  immediate 
operation  of  almighty  power  on  the  soul.  Those  who  depart  from 
their  principles  so  far  as  to  admit  the  person  of  Christ  to  be  su- 
pernatural in  its  origin  contend  that  the  supernatural  in  Him 
becomes  natural,  and  that  from  Him  onward  the  diffusion  of 
spiritual  life  is  by  a  regular  process  of  development,  as  simply 
natural  as  the  development  of  humanity  from  Adam  througli  all 
his  posterity. 

This  is  purely  a  philosophical  theory.  It  has  no  authority  for 
Christians.  As  it  is  contrary  to  the  express  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  it  cannot  be  adopted  by  those  who  recognize  them  as 
the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  As  it  contradicts  the 
moral  and  religious  convictions  arising  from  the  constitution  of 
our  nature,  it  must  be  hurtful  in  all  its  tendencies,  and  can  be 
adopted  by  those  only  who  sacrifice  to  speculation  their  interior 
life. 

Resting  on  False  Psychological  Theories. 

2.  A  second  class  of  objections  are  founded  on  certain  psycho 
logical  theories  on  free  agency,  on  the  nature  of  the  soul,  and  on 
the  conditions  of  moral  obligation.  No  theories  on  these,  or  any 
other  subjects,  have  any  authority,  except  those  which  underlie 
and  are  necessarily  assumed  in  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  the 
Scripture.  If  any  theory  teaches  that  plenary  ability  is  essential 
to  free  agency  ;  that  God  cannot  control  with  certainty  the  acts 


88  TART  m.   Ch.  XV.— regeneration. 

of  free  agents  without  destroying  their  liberty  ;  or  that  free  acts 
cannot  be  foreseen,  predicted,  or  foreordained,  then  such  theory 
must  be  false  if  the  Scriptures  assert  facts  which  imply  the  con- 
trary. If  a  theory  teaches  that  men  are  responsible  only  for 
acts  of  the  will,  under  their  own  control,  that  theory  must  be 
rejected  if  the  Bible  teaches  that  we  are  responsible  for  states 
of  mind  over  which  the  will  has  no  direct  power.  The  facts  in- 
volved in  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  regeneration,  as  stated 
above,  contradict  the  theories  on  which  the  arguments  of  the 
Remonstrants,  Pelagians,  and  others  against  that  doctrine  rest, 
and  therefore  those  theories  must  share  the  fate  of  every  doctrine 
which  contradicts  established  facts.  This  has  been  demonstrated 
over  and  over  in  different  ages  of  the  Church.  The  principles 
involved  in  these  objections  have  been  discussed  in  the  preceding 
pages,  and  need  not  be  again  considered. 

Objections  founded  on  the  Divine  Perfection. 

3.  A  third  class  of  objections  are  drawn  from  the  supposed 
inconsistency  of  this  doctrine  with  the  moral  perfections  of  God. 
If  all  men  are  dead  in  sin,  destitute  of  the  power  to  restore  them- ' 
selves  to  life,  then  not  only  is  it  unjust  that  they  should  be  con- 
demned, but  it  is  also  incompatible  with  the  divine  rectitude  that 
God  should  exert  his  almighty  power  in  the  regeneration  of  some, 
while  He  leaves  others  to  perish.  Justice,  it  is  said,  demands  that 
all  should  have  an  equal  opportunity  ;  that  all  should  have,  by 
nature  or  from  grace,  power  to  secure  their  own  salvation.  It 
is  obvious  that  such  objections  do  not  bear  peculiarly  against  the 
Augustinian  system.  They  are  urged  by  atheists  against  Theism. 
If  there  be  a  personal  God  of  infinite  power,  why  does  He  permit 
sin  and  misery  to  hold  joint  supremacy  on  earth  ;  why  are  good 
and  evil  so  unequally  distributed,  and  why  is  the  distribution  so 
arbitrary  ? 

Deists  make  the  same  objections  against  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Bible.  They  cannot  receive  it  as  the  Word  of  God  because 
it  represents  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world  as  placing 
men  under  circumstances  which  secure  in  some  way  the  univer- 
sality of  sin,  and  then  punishing  them  with  inexorable  severity 
even  for  their  idle  words. 

It  is  also  plain  that  the   different   anti- Augustinian   systems 
,  afford  no  real  relief  from  these  difficulties.     Admitting  that  re- 
generation is  the  sinners  own  act;   admitting  that  every  man 
has  all  the  knowledge  and  all  the  ability  necessary  to  secure  hia 


§  4.]  OBJECTIONS.  39 

salvation,  it  remains  true  that  few  are  saved,  and  that  God  does 
not  interpose  to  prevent  the  great  majority  of  adult  men  in  the 
present  state  of  the  world  perishing  in  their  sins. 

Augustinians  do  not  deny  these  difficulties.  They  only  main- 
tain that  they  are  not  peculiar  to  their  system ;  and  they  rest 
content  with  the  solution  of  them  given  in  the  Scriptures.  That 
solution  agrees  with  all  the  facts  of  consciousness  and  experience, 
so  far  as  consciousness  and  experience  extend.  The  Bible  teaches 
that  man  was  created  holy  ;  that  by  his  voluntary  transgression 
of  the  divine  law  he  apostatized  from  God  ;  that  in  consequence 
of  this  apostasy  all  men  come  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
death,  both  guilty  and  polluted ;  that  God  exercises  no  influence 
to  lead  them  into  sin,  but  on  the  contrary,  by  his  truth,  his  prov- 
idence, and  by  his  Spirit  exerts  all  that  influence  over  them 
which  should  induce  rational  beings  to  repent  and  seek  his  par- 
doning mercy  and  sanctifying  grace ;  that  all  those  who  sincerely 
and  faithfully  seek  reconciliation  with  God  in  the  way  of  his 
appointment  He  actually  saves  ;  that  of  his  sovereign  grace  He, 
in  the  exercise  of  his  mighty  power,  renews  and  sanctifies  a  mul- 
titude which  no  man  can  number,  who  would  otherwise  have 
continued  in  their  sins.  With  these  representations  of  the  Scrip- 
tures everything  within  the  sphere  of  our  knowledge  agrees. 
Consciousness  and  experience  testify  that  we  are  an  apostate 
race  ;  that  all  men  are  sinners,  and,  being  sinners,  have  forfeited 
all  claims  on  the  favour  of  God  ;  that  in  continuing  in  sin  and  in 
rejecting  the  overtures  of  mercy  men  act  voluntarily,  following 
the  desires  of  their  own  hearts.  Every  man's  conscience,  more- 
over, teaches  him  that  he  has  never  sought  the  salvation  of  his 
soul  with  the  sincerity  and  perseverance  with  which  men  seek 
the  things  of  the  world,  and  yet  failed  in  his  efforts.  Every  man 
who  comes  short  of  eternal  life  knows  that  the  responsibility  rests 
upon  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  experience  of  every  be- 
liever is  a  witness  to  him  that  it  is  of  God  and  not  of  himself  that 
he  is  in  Christ  (1  Corinthians  i.  30)  ;  every  believer  knows  that 
if  God  had  left  him  to  himself  he  would  have  continued  in  unbe- 
lief and  sin.  Why  God  intervenes  to  save  one  and  not  another, 
when  all  are  equally  undeserving ;  why  the  things  of  God  are 
revealed  unto  babes  while  hidden  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  can 
only  be  answered  in  the  language  of  our  Lord,  "  Even  so.  Father, 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."     (Matthew  xi.  26.) 

The  more  popular  and  common  objections  that  the  Augustinian 
doctrine  of  regeneration  leads  to  the  neglect  of  the  means  of 


40  PAET  III.     Ch.   XV.  —  regeneration. 

grace,  "  to  waiting  for  God's  time,"  to  indifference  or  despair; 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  exhortations  and  commands  addressed 
to  sinners  to  repent  and  believe,  and  incompatible  with  moral 
responsibility,  have  already  been  repeatedly  considered.  It  is 
enough  to  say  once  more  that  these  objections  are  founded  on  the 
assimiption  that  inability,  even  when  it  arises  out  of  our  own  sin- 
fuhiess,  is  incompatible  with  obligation.  Besides,  it  is  the  natural 
and  actual  tendency  of  a  sense  of  helplessness  under  a  bmxlen  of 
evil,  to  lead  to  earnest  and  importunate  application  for  relief  to 
Him  who  is  aW«?  to  afford  it,  and  by  whom  it  is  offered. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
FAITH. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Remarks . 

The  first  conscious  exercise  of  the  renewed  soul  is  faith ;  aa 
the  first  conscious  act  of  a  inan  born  blind  whose  eyes  have  been 
opened,  is  seeing.  The  exercise  of  vision  in  such  a  man  is  indeed 
attended  by  so  many  new  sensations  and  emotions  that  he  cannot 
determine  how  much  of  this  new  experience  comes  through  the 
eye,  and  how  much  from  other  sources.  It  is  so  with  the  believer. 
As  soon  as  his  eyes  are  opened  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
he  is  in  a  new  world.  Old  things  have  passed  away,  all  things 
are  become  new.  The  apprehension  of  "the  things  of  God"  as 
true  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  the  exercises  of  the  renewed  soul. 
The  discussions  on  the  question.  Whether  faith  precedes  repent- 
ance, or  repentance  faith,  can  have  no  place  if  the  meaning  of 
of  the  words  be  agreed  upon.  Unless  faith  be  limited  to  some  of 
its  special  exercises  there  can  be  no  question  that  in  the  order  of 
nature  it  must  precede  repentance.  Repentance  is  the  turning 
of  the  soul  from  sin  unto  God,  and  unless  this  be  produced  by  the 
believing  apprehension  of  the  truth  it  is  not  even  a  rational  act. 
As  so  much  prominence  is  assigned  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures,  as 
all  the  promises  of  God  are  addressed  to  believers,  and  as  all  the 
conscious  exercises  of  spiritual  hfe  involve  the  exercise  of  faith, 
without  which  they  are  impossible,  the  importance  of  this  grace 
cannot  be  overestimated.  To  the  theologian  and  to  the  practical 
Christian  it  is  indispensable  that  clear  and  correct  ideas  should 
be  entertained  on  the  subject.  It  is  one  of  special  difficulty. 
This  difficulty  arises  jprtly  from  the  nature  of  the  subject ;  partly 
from  the  fact  that  usage  has  assigned  the  word  faith  so  many 
different  meanings ;  partly  from  the  arbitrary  definitions  given 
of  it  by  philosophers  and  theologians  ;  and  partly  from  the  great 
diversity  of  aspects  under  which  it  is  presented  in  the  Word  of 
God. 

The  question,  What  is  Faith  ?  is  a  very  comprehensive  one. 
In  one  view  it  is  a  metaphysical  question.     What  is  the  psycho- 


42  PART  III.     Ch.   XVI.  — faith. 

logical  nature  of  the  act  or  state  of  tlie  mind  which  Ave  designate 
faith,  or  belief  ?  In  this  aspect  the  discussion  concerns  the  phi- 
losopher as  much  as  the  theologian.  Secondly,  faith  may  be 
viewed  as  to  its  exercise  in  the  whole  sphere  of  religion  and 
morality.  Thirdly,  it  may  be  considered  as  a  Christian  grace, 
the  fruit  of  the  Spirit ;  that  is,  those  exercises  of  faith  which  are 
peculiar  to  the  regenerated  people  of  God.  This  is  what  is 
meant  by  saving  faith.  Fourthly,  it  may  be  viewed  in  its  rela- 
tion to  justification,  sanctification,  and  holy  living,  or,  as  to  those 
special  exercises  of  faith  which  are  required  as  the  necessary 
conditions  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God,  or  as  essential  to 
holiness  of  heart  and  life. 

§  2.   The  Psychological  Nature  of  Faith. 

Faith  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  is  assent  to  the  truth, 
or  the  persuasion  of  the  mind  that  a  thing  is  true.  In  ordinary 
popular  language  we  are  said  to  believe  whatever  we  regard  as 
true.  The  primarj^  element  of  faith  is  trust.  The  Hebrew  word 
•jTi^S  means  to  sustain,  to  uphold.  In  the  Niphil,  to  be  firm,  and, . 
in  a  moral  sense,  to  be  trustworthy.  In  the  Hiphil,  to  regard  as 
firm,  or  trustworthy,  to  place  trust  or  confidence  in.  In  like 
manner  the  Greek  Trto-reuo)  (from  Trto-rts,  and  that  from  -n-eWw^  to 
persuade),  means  to  trust,  ^.  e.,  to  be  persuaded  that  a  person  or 
thing  is  trustworthy.  Hence  the  epithet  Trto-ro's  is  ajDplied  to  any 
one  who  is,  and  who  shows  himself  to  be,  worthy  of  trust.  In 
Latin  credere  (whence  our  word  credit)  has  the  same  meaning. 
In  mercantile  matters  it  means  to  lend,  to  trust  to  ;  and  then  in 
general,  to  exercise  trust  in.  "  Crede  mihi,"  trust  me,  rely  on 
my  word.  Fides  Qh-om  fido,  and  that  from  Tret^o)),  is  also  trust, 
confidence  exercised  in  regard  to  any  person  or  thing  ;  then  the 
disposition,  or  virtue  which  excites  confidence  ;  then  the  promise, 
declaration,  or  pledge  which  is  the  outward  ground  of  confidence. 
In  the  cognate  words,  fidens,  fidelis,  fiducia,  the  same  idea  is 
prominent.  The  German  word  "  Glaube  "  has  the  same  general 
meaning.  It  is  defined  by  Heinsius  (Worterjouch)  :  "  der  Zustand 
des  Gemiithes,  da  man  eine  Sache  fiir  wahr  halt  und  sich  darauf 
verlasst,"  i.  e.,  "  that  state  of  mind  in  which  a  man  receives  and 
relies  upon  a  thing  as  true."  The  English  word  "  faith  "  is  said  to 
be  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  "  f;egan  "  to  covenant.  It  is  that  state 
of  mind  which  a  covenant  requires  or  supposes  ;  that  is,  it  is  con- 
fidence in  a  person  or  thing  as  trustworthy.  "  To  believe,"  is 
defined  by  the  Latin  "  credere,  fidem  dare  sive  habere."     "  The 


§2.]  ITS   PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  43 

etymologists,"  says  Richardson,  "  do  not  attempt  to  account  for 
tins  important  word :  it  is  undoubtedly  formed  on  the  Dut.  Le- 
ven  ;  Ger.  Lehen;  A.-S.  Lif-ian,  Be-lif-ian  ;  Goth.  Liban,  nvere, 
to  live,  or  be-live,  to  dwell.  Live  or  leve,  be-  or  bi-live  or  leve, 
are  used  indifferently  by  old  writers,  whether  to  denote  vivere  or 

credere To  believe^  then,  is  to  live  by  or  according  to,  to 

abide  by  ;  to  guide,  conduct,  regulate,  govern,  or  direct  the  life 
by  ;  to  take,  accept,  assume  or  adopt  as  a  rule  of  life  ;  and,  con- 
sequently, to  think,  deem,  or  judge  right ;  to  be  firmly  persuaded 
of,  to  give  credit  to  ;  to  trust,  or  thiiilv  trustworthy  ;  to  have  or 
give  faith  or  confidence  ;  to  confide,  to  think  or  deem  faithful." 

The  Primary  Idea  of  Faith  is  Trust. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  primary  idea  of  faith  is  trust. 
The  primary  idea  of  truth  is  that  which  is  trustworthy  ;  that 
which  sustains  our  expectations,  which  does  not  disappoint,  be- 
cause it  really  is  what  it  is  assumed  or  declared  to  be.  It  is 
opposed  to  the  deceitful,  the  false,  the  unreal,  the  empty,  and  the 
worthless.  To  regard  a  thing  as  true,  is  to  regard  it  as  worthy 
of  trust,  as  being  what  it  purports  to  be.  Faith,  in  the  compre- 
hensive and  legitimate  meaning  of  the  word,  therefore,  is  trust. 

In  accordance  with  this  general  idea  of  faith,  Augustine  ^  says, 
"  Credere,  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  cum  assensione  cogitare."  Thus, 
also,  Reid^  says,  "  Belief  admits  of  all  degrees,  from  the  slightest 
suspicion  to  the  fullest  assurance There  are  many  opera- 
tions of  the  mind  in  which  ....  we  find  belief  to  be  an  essen- 
tial ingredient Belief  is  an  ingredient  in  consciousness, 

in  perception,  and  in  remembrance We  give  the  name  of 

evidence  to  whatever  is  a  ground  of  belief What  this  evi- 
dence is,  is  more  easily  felt  than  described The  common 

occasions  of  life  lead  us  to  distinguish  evidence  into  different 
kinds,  ....  such  as  the  evidence  of  sense,  the  evidence  of  mem- 
ory, the  evidence  of  consciousness,  the  evidence  of  testimony,  the 

evidence  of  axioms,  the  evidence  of  reasoning They  seem 

to  me  to  agree  only  in  this,  that  they  are  all  fitted  by  nature  to 
produce  belief  in  the  human  mind." 

1  De  Prcedestinatione  Sanctorum  [ii.],  5;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  x. 
p.  1349  b. 

2  On  the  Intellectual  Powers,  Essay  ii.  ch.  xx. ;  Works,  Edinburgh,  1849,  pp.  327  b, 
328  a,  b. 


44  PART  m.   Ch.  xvl  — faith. 

The  more  limited  Sense  of  the  Word. 
There  is,  however,  in  most  cases  a  great  difference  hetween  the 
general  signification  of  a  word  and  its  special  and  characteristic 
meaning.  Although,  therefore,  there  is  an  element  -of  belief  in 
all  our  cognitions,  there  is  an  important  difference  between  what 
is  strictly  and  properly  called  faith,  and  those  states  or  acts  of  the 
mind  which  we  designate  as  sight  or  perception,  intuition,  opinions, 
conclusions,  or  apodictic  judgments.  What  that  characteristic 
difference  is,  is  the  point  to  be  determined.  There  are  modes  of 
statement  on  this  subject  current  among  a  certain  class  of  philos- 
ophers and  theologians,  which  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  defini- 
tions of  faith.  They  take  the  word  out  of  its  ordinary  and  estab- 
lished meaning,  or  arbitrarily  limit  it  to  a  special  sphere  of  our 
mental  operations.  Thus  Morell^  says,  "Faith  is  the  intuition 
of  eternal  verities."  But  eternal  verities  are  not  the  only  objects 
of  faith  ;  nor  is  intuition  the  only  mode  of  apprehending  truth 
which  is  of  the  nature  of  belief.  The  same  objections  bear  against 
the  assertion  that  "  Faith  is  the  organ  for  the  supernatural  and 
divine  ;"  or,  as  Eschenmayer  expresses  it,  ^  "  Ein  vom  Denken, 
Fiihlen  und  Wollen  verschiedenes,  eigenthiimliches  Organ  f iir  das 
Ewige  und  Heilige  ;  a  special  organ  for  the  eternal  and  the  holy." 
The  supernatural  and  divine,  however,  are  not  the  exclusive  ob- 
jects even  of  religious  faith.  It  is  by  faith  we  know  that  the 
worlds  were  made  by  the  word  of  God  ;  it  was  by  faith  Noah 
prepared  the  ark,  and  Abraham,  being  called  of  God,  went  out 
not  knowing  whither  he  went.  The  objects  of  faith  in  these  cases 
are  not  what  is  meant  by  "  eternal  verities."  It  is,  moreover,  an 
arbitrary  assumption  that  faith  is  "  a  special  organ,"  even  when 
things  supernatural  and  divine  are  its  object.  Our  nature  is 
adapted  to  the  reception  of  all  kinds  of  truth  of  which  we  can 
have  any  idea.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  a  special  organ 
for  historical  truths,  a  special  organ  for  scientific  truths,  and  an- 
other for  the  general  truths  of  revelation,  and  still  another  for 
"  the  eternal  and  the  holy."  God  has  constituted  us  capable  of 
belief,  and  the  complex  state  of  mind  involved  in  the  act  of  faith 
is  of  course  different  according  to  the  nature  of  the  truth  believed, 
and  the  nature  of  the  evidence  on  which  our  faith  is  founded. 
But  this  does  not  necessitate  the  assumption  of  a  distinct  organ 
for  each  kind  of  truth. 

1  Philosophy  of  Rdigion. 

2  Die  einfachste  Dogmalilc,  §  338 ;  Tubingen,  1826,  p.  376. 


§2.:  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  45 

Faith  not  to  he  regarded  as  simply  a  Christian  Grace. 

No  less  unsatisfactory  are  those  descriptions  of  faith  which 
regard  it  only  in  its  character  as  a  Christian  and  saving  grace. 
Delitzsch,  for  example,^  describes  faith  as  the  most  central  act 
of  our  being  ;  the  return  to  God,  the  going  out  of  our  inner  life 
to  Him.  "  This  longing  after  God's  free,  merciful  love,  as  his  own 
Word  declares  it,  —  a  longing,  reaching  forth,  and  grasping  it ; 
this  naked,  unselfish  craving,  feeling  itself  satisfied  with  nothing 
else  than  God's  promised  grace  ;  this  eagerness,  absorbing  every 
ray  of  light  that  proceeds  from  God's  reconciled  love  ;  this  con- 
vinced and  safety-craving  appropriation  and  clinging  to  the  word 
of  grace  ;  —  tliis  is  faith.  According  to  its  nature,  it  is  the  pure 
receptive  correlative  of  the  word  of  promise  ;  a  means  of  approach- 
ing again  to  God,  which,  as  the  word  itself,  is  appointed  through 
the  distance  of  God  in  consequence  of  sin  ;  for  faith  has  to  con- 
fide in  the  word,  in  spite  of  all  want  of  comprehension,  want  of 
sight,  want  of  experience.  No  experimental  actus  refiexi  belong 
to  the  nature  of  faith.  It  is,  according  to  its  nature,  actio  directa, 
to  wit,  fiducia  supplex.''''  All  this  is  doubtless  true  of  the  believer. 
He  does  thus  long  after  God,  and  appropriate  the  assurance  of  his 
love,  and  cling  to  his  promises  of  grace ;  but  faith  has  a  wider 
range  than  this.  There  are  exercises  of  faith  not  included  in  this 
description,  recorded  in  Scripture,  and  especially  in  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Erdmann^  says  that  religious  faith,  the  faith  on  which  the 
Scriptiu-es  lay  so  much  stress,  is,  "  Bewusstseyn  der  Verscihnung 
mit  Gott,  consciousness  of  reconciliation  with  God."  He  insists 
that  faith  cannot  be  separated  from  its  contents.  It  is  not  the  man 
who  holds  this  or  that  to  be  true,  who  is  a  believer ;  but  the  man 
who  is  convinced  of  a  specific  truth,  namely,  that  he  is  reconciled 
with  God.  Calling  faith  a  consciousness  is  not  a  definition  of  its 
nature.  And  limiting  it  to  a  consciousness  of  reconciliation  with 
God  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  Scripture  and  of  theology. 

Definitions  of  Faith  founded  on  its  Subjective  Nature. 

The  more  common  and  generally  received  definitions  of  faith, 
may  perhaps  be  reduced  to  three  classes,  all  of  which  include  the 
general  idea  of  persuasion  of  the  truth.     But  some  seek  the  dis- 

1  Biblical  Psychology ,  p.  174. 

2  Vorlesungen  ilber  Glauben  und  Wlssen,  von  Johann  Eduard  Erdmann,  Berlin,  1837, 
p.  30. 


46  PART  III.     Ch.  XVI. —faith. 

tinguisliing  character  of  faith  in  its  subjective  nature ;  others,  in 
the  nature  of  its  object ;  others,  in  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  or 
ground  on  which  it  rests. 

Faith  as  distinguished  from  Opinion  and  Knowledge. 

To  the  first  of  these  chisses  belono;  the  f ollomns:  definitions : 
Faith  or  belief  is  said  to  be  a  persuasion  of  the  truth  stronger 
than  opinion,  and  weaker  than  knowledge.  Metaphysicians  di- 
vide the  objects  of  our  cognitions  into  the  possible,  the  real,  and 
the  necessary.  With  regard  to  the  merely  possible  we  can  form 
only  conjectures,  or  opinions,  more  or  less  plausible  or  probable. 
With  regard  to  things  which  the  mind  with  greater  or  less  confi- 
dence views  as  certain,  although  it  cannot  justify  that  confidence 
to  itself  or  others,  i.  e.,  cannot  demonstrate  the  certainty  of  the 
object,  it  is  said  to  believe.  What  it  is  perfectly  assured  of,  and 
can  demonstrate  to  be  true  so  as  to  coerce  conviction,  it  is  said  to 
know.  Thus  Locke  defines  faith  to  be  the  assent  of  the  mind  to 
propositions  which  are  probabl}^,  but  not  certainly  true.  Bailey  ^ 
says,  "I  propose  to  confine  it  [belief  or  faith]  first,  to  the  effect 
on  the  mind  of  the  premises  in  what  is  termed  probable  reason- 
ing, or  what  I  have  named  contingent  reasoning  —  in  a  word  the 
premises  in  all  reasoning,  but  that  which  is  demonstrative  ;  and 
secondly,  to  the  state  of  holding  true  when  that  state,  far  from 
being  the  effect  of  any  premises  discerned  by  the  mind,  is  disso- 
ciated from  all  evidence."  To  believe  is  to  admit  a  thing  as 
true,  according  to  Kant,  on  grounds  sufficient  subjectively,  insuffi-, 
cient  objectively.  Or,  as  more  fully  stated,  "  Holding  for  true, 
or  the  subjective  validity  of  a  judgment  in  relation  to  conviction 
(which  is,  at  the  same  time,  objectively  valid)  has  the  three  fol- 
lowing degrees :  opinion,  behef,  and  knowledge.  Opinion  is  a 
consciously  insufficient  judgment,  subjectively  as  well  as  object- 
ively. Belief  is  subjectively  sufficient,  but  is  recognized  as  being 
objectively  insufficient.  Knowledge  is  both  subjectively  and  ob- 
jectively sufficient.  Subjective  sufficiency  is  termed  conviction 
(for  myself)  ;  objective  sufficiency  is  termed  certainty  (for  all)."^ 
Erdmnnn  ^  says,  "  ]\Ian  versteht  unter  Glauben  eine  jede  Gewiss- 
heit,  die  geringer  ist  als  das  Wissen,  und  etwa  stiirker  ist  als  ein 
blosses  Meinen  oder  Fiirmoglichhalten  (z.  B.  ich  glaube,  dass  es 

1  Letters  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  Iluinan  Mmd,  London,  1855,  pp.  75.  70. 

2  Meiklejohn's  Translation  of  Critic  of  Pure  litason,  Loudon,  1855,  p.  498. 
8  Glauben  und  Wisstn,  Berlin,  1837,  p.  29. 


§2.]  ITS   PSYCHOLOGICAL   NATURE.  47 

heute  regnen  wird)."  "  By  faith  is  understood  any  persuasion 
which  is  weaker  than  knowledge,  but  somewhat  stronger  than  a 
mere  deeming  possible  or  probable,  as,  e.  g.^  I  believe  it  will  rain 
to-day."  This  he  gives  as  the  commonly  accepted  meaning  of 
the  word,  although  he  utterly  repudiates  it  as  a  definition  of  re- 
ligious faith. 

It  is  urged  in  support  of  this  definition  of  faith  that  with  re- 
gard to  everything  of  which  we  are  not  absolutely  sure,  and  yet 
are  persuaded  or  convinced  of  its  truth,  we  say  we  believe.  Thus 
with  respect  to  things  remembered ;  if  the  recollection  is  indis- 
tinct and  uncertain,  we  say  we  think,  e.  g.^  we  think  we  saw  a 
certain  person  at  a  given  time  and  place  ;  we  are  not  sure,  but 
such  is  our  impression.  If  our  persuasion  of  the  fact  be  stronger, 
we  say  we  believe  it.  If  we  have,  and  can  have,  no  doubt  about 
it,  we  say  we  know  it.  In  like  manner  the  testimony  of  our 
senses  may  be  so  weak  as  to  produce  only  a  probability  that  the 
thing  is  as  it  appears  ;  if  clearer,  it  produces  a  belief  more  or  less 
decided  ;  if  so  clear  as  to  preclude  all  doubt,  the  effect  is  knowl 
edge.  If  we  see  a  person  at  a  distance,  and  we  are  entirely  un- 
certain who  it  is,  we  can  only  say  we  think  it  is  some  one  whom 
we  know.  If  that  persuasion  becomes  stronger,  we  say,  we  be- 
lieve it  is  he.  If  perfectly  sure,  we  say,  we  know  it.  In  all 
these  cases  the  only  difference  between  opinion,  belief,  and  knowl- 
edge, is  their  relative  strength.  The  objects  are  the  same,  their 
relation  to  the  mind  is  the  same,  and  the  ground  or  evidence  on 
which  they  severally  rest  is  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  said  that  it 
would  be  incorrect  to  say,  "  We  believe  that  we  slept  in  our  house 
last  night ;  "  if  perfectly  sure  of  the  fact.  If  a  witness  in  a  court 
of  justice  simply  says,  "  I  believe  I  was  at  a  certain  place  at  a 
given  time,"  his  testimony  would  be  of  no  value.  He  must  be 
able  to  say  that  he  is  sure  of  the  fact  —  that  he  knows  it. 

Objections  to  this  Definition. 

Of  this  definition  of  faith,  it  may  be  remarked,  — 
1.  That  the  meaning  which  it  assigns  to  the  word  is  certainly 
legitimate,  sustained  by  established  usage.  The  states  of  mind 
expressed  by  the  words,  I  think  a  thing  to  be  true  ;  I  believe  it ; 
I  know  it,  are  distinguished  from  each  other  simply  by  the  differ- 
ent degrees  of  certainty  which  enter  into  them  respectively.  The 
probable  ground  of  tliis  use  of  the  word  to  believe,  is,  that  there 
is  more  of  the  element  of  trust  (or  a  voluntarily  giving  to  evi- 
dence a  greater  influence  on  the  mind  than  of  necessity  belongs 


48  PART  m.   Ch.  xvl  — faith. 

to  it),  manifest  in  our  consciousness,  than  is  expressed  by  saying, 
we  tliink,  or,  we  know.  However  this  may  be,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  word  belief  often  expresses  a  degree  of  conviction 
greater  than  opinion  and  less  than  knowledge. 

2.  But  this  is  not  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  faith,  or 
its  differentia.  There  are  exercises  of  faith  into  which  this  un- 
certamty  does  not  enter.  Some  of  the  strongest  convictions  of 
which  the  mind  is  capable  are  beliefs.  Even  our  assurance  of 
the  veracity  of  consciousness,  the  foundation  of  all  other  convic- 
tions, is  of  the  nature  of  faith.  So  the  primary  truths  which  are, 
and  must  be  assumed  in  all  our  researches  and  arguments,  are 
beliefs.  They  are  taken  on  trust.  They  cannot  be  proved.  If 
any  man  denies  them,  there  is  nothing  more  to  be  said.  He  can- 
not be  convinced.  Sir  "William  Hamilton ^  says,  "St.  Austin 
accurately  says,  '  We  know  what  rests  upon  reason  ;  we  believe 
what  rests  upon  authority.'  But  reason  itself  must  at  last  rest 
upon  authority  ;  for  the  original  data  of  reason  do  not  rest  on 
reason,  but  are  necessarily  accepted  by  reason  on  the  authority  of 
what  is  beyond  itself.  These  data  are,  therefore,  in  rigid  pro- 
priety, beliefs  or  trusts.  Thus  it  is  that,  in  the  last  resort,  we 
must,  perforce,  philosophically  admit,  that  belief  is  the  primary 
condition  of  reason,  and  not  reason  the  ultimate  ground  of  belief. 
We  are  compelled  to  surrender  the  proud  Intellige  ut  credas  of 
Abelard,  to  content  ourselves  -with  the  humble  Crede  ut  intelligas 
of  Anselm." 

The  same  is  true  in  other  spheres.  The  effect  on  the  mind 
produced  by  human  testimony  is  universally  recognized  as  faith. 
If  that  testimony  is  inadequate  it  does  not  preclude  doubt ;  but  it 
may  be  so  strong  as  to  make  all  doubt  impossible.  No  sane  man 
can  doubt  the  existence  of  such  cities  as  London  and  Paris.  But 
to  most  men  that  existence  is  not  a  matter  of  knowledge  either 
mtuitive  or  discursive.  It  is  something  taken  on  trust,  on  the 
authority  of  others ;  which  taking  on  trust  is  admitted  by  philos- 
ophers, theologians,  and  the  mass  of  men,  to  be  a  form  of  faith. 
Again,  in  some  moral  states  of  mind  a  man's  conviction  of  the 
reality  of  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punishment  is  as  strong  as- 
his  belief  in  his  OA^m  existence,  and  much  stronger  than  his  confi- 
dence in  the  testimony  of  his  senses.  And  yet  a  future  state  of 
existence  is  not  a  matter  of  knowledge.  It  is  an  object  of  faith, 
or  a  thing  believed.  We  accordingly  find  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  there  is  a  full  assurance  of  faith ;  a  faith  which  pre- 

1  Reid's  Worhs ;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1849,  note  A,  §  5,  p.  760  b. 


§  2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  49 

eludes  the  possibility  of  doubt.  Paul  says,  "I  know  whom  I 
have  beUeved,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that 
which  I  have  committed  unto  him  against  that  day."  (2  Tim. 
i.  12.)  As  Job  had  said  ages  before,  "  I  know  that  my  Re- 
deemer liveth."  The  Apostle  declares,  Hebrews  xi.  1,  faith  to 
be  an  wTrdorao-is  and  «^eyx"^»  than  which  no  stronger  terms  could  be 
selected  to  express  assured  conviction.  The  power,  also,  which 
the  Bible  attributes  to  faith  as  the  controlhng  principle  of  life,  as 
overcoming  the  world,  subduing  kingdoms,  stopping  the  mouths 
of  lions,  quenching  the  violence  of  fire,  turning  to  flight  the  armies 
of  the  aliens,  is  proof  enough  that  it  is  no  weak  persuasion  of  the 
truth.  That  definition,  therefore,  which  makes  the  characteristic 
of  faith  to  be  a  measure  of  confidence  greater  than  opinion,  but 
less  than  knowledge,  cannot  be  deemed  satisfactory. 

Faith  not  a  Voluntary  Conviction. 

A  second  definition  of  faith,  founded  on  its  nature,  is  that 
which  makes  it  "a  voluntary  conviction  or  persuasion  of  the 
truth."  This  is  a  very  old  view  of  the  matter.  According  to 
Theodoret,^  tticttis  larTiv  c«oucrtos  t^s  ij/vx^'i  o-uyKaTa6'ecrts,  ^'.  g.,  "  a  Vol- 
untary assent  of  the  mind."  And  Thomas  Aquinas  says,^  "  Cre- 
dere est  actus  intellectus  assentientis  veritati  divine  ex  imperio 
voluntatis  a  Deo  niotse  per  gratiam."  ^  He  distinguishes  between 
laiowledge  and  faith  by  representing  the  former  as  the  conviction 
produced  by  the  object  itself  seen  intuitively  or  discursively 
("  slcut  patet  in  principiis  primis,  ....  vel  ....  sicut  patet 
de  conclusionibus")  to  be  true;  whereas  m  the  latter  the  mind 
is  not  sufliciently  moved  to  assent  "  ab  objecto  proprio,  sed  per 
quandam  electionem,  voluntarie  declinans  in  unam  partem  magis 
quam  in  alteram.  Et  siquidem  haec  sit  cum  dubitatione  et  for- 
midine  alterius  partis,  erit  opinio.  Si  autem  sit  cum  certitudine 
absque  tali  formidine,  erit  fides." 

This  definition  admits  of  different  explanations.  The  word 
"  voluntary,"  if  its  meaning  be  determined  by  the  wide  sense  of 
the  word  '  will,"  includes  every  operation  of  the  mind  not  purely 
intellectual.  And  therefore  to  say  that  faith  is  a  voluntary  assent 
is  to  say  that  faith  is  not  merely  a  speculative  assent,  an  act  of 
the  judgment  pronouncing  a  thing  to  be  true,  but  inchides  feeling. 
Nitfech,  therefore,  defines  faith  to  be  a  "  gefiihlsmassiges  Erken- 

1  Grcecarum  Affectionum  Curatio,  sermo  i.  edit.  Commelinus,  Heidelberg(  ?),  1592,  p.  16, 
ines  11,  12. 

2  Sunima,  ii.  ii.  quoest.  ii.  art.  9,  edit.  Cologne,  1610,  p.  8  b,  of  third  set. 
8  Ihid.  quiEst.  i.  art.  4,  pp.  3  b,  4  a,  of  third  set. 


50  PART  III.     Ch.   XVI.  — faith. 

nen."  "  Die  Einlieit  des  Gefiilils  imd  der  Erkenntniss  ;  ^  a  Imowl- 
edge  or  persuasion  of  truth  combined  mth  feeling,  —  the  unity  of 
feeling  and  knowledge."  But  if  the  word  "  will  "  be  taken  in  the 
sense  of  the  power  of  seK-determination,  then  nothing  is  volun- 
tary which  does  not  involve  the  exercise  of  that  power.  If  in 
this  sense  faith  be  voluntary,  then  we  must  have  the  power  to 
believe  or  disbelieve  at  pleasure.  If  we  believe  the  truth,  it  is 
because  we  choose  or  determine  ourselves  to  receive  it ;  if  we 
reject  it,  it  is  because  we  will  to  clisbeheve  it.  The  decision  is 
determined  neither  by  the  nature  of  the  object  nor  by  the  nature 
or  degree  of  the  evidence.  Sometimes  both  of  these  meanings  of 
the  word  voluntary  seem  to  be  combined  by  those  who  define  faith 
to  be  a  voluntary  assent  of  the  mind,  or  an  assent  of  the  intellect 
determined  by  the  will.  This  appears  from  what  Aquinas,  for 
example,  says  when  he  discusses  the  question  whether  faith  is  a 
virtue.  He  argues  that  if  faith  be  a  virtue,  wliich  he  admits  it  to 
be,  it  must  include  love,  because  love  is  the  form  or  principle  of 
all  the  virtues  ;  and  it  must  be  self-determined  because  there  could 
be  no  virtue  in  faith  if  it  were  the  inevitable  effect  of  the  evi- 
dence or  testimony.  If  a  virtue,  it  must  include  an  act  of  self-de- 
termmation  ;  we  must  decide  to  do  what  we  have  the  power  not  to 
do. 

Ile7narks  on  this  Definition  of  Faith. 

This  definition  of  faith  contains  many  elements  of  truth.  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  true  that  faith  and  feeling  are  often  insepa- 
rable. They  together  constitute  that  state  of  mind  to  which  the 
name  faith  is  given.  The  perception  of  beauty  is  of  necessity 
connected  with  the  feeling  of  delight.  Assent  to  moral  truth 
involves  the  feehng  of  moral  approbation.  In  like  manner  spir- 
itual discernment  (faith  when  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit)  includes 
delight  in  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  not  only  as  true,  but  as  beau- 
tiful and  good.  This  is  the  difference  between  a  living  and  dead 
faith.  This  is  the  portion  of  truth  involved  in  the  Romish  doc- 
trine of  a  formed  and  unformed  faith.  Faith  (assent  to  the 
truth)  connected  mth  love  is  the  fides  formata  ;  faith  without 
love  is  fides  informis.  While,  however,  it  is  true  that  faith  is 
often  necessarily  connected  with  feehng,  and,  therefore,  in  one 
sense  of  the  term,  is  a  voluntary  assent,  yet  this  is  not  always  the 
case.  Whether'  feeling  attends  and  enters  into  the  exercise  of 
faith,  depends  upon  its  object  (or  the  thing  believed)  and  the 
evidence  on  which  it  is  founded.     When  the  object  of  faith  is  a 

1  System  der  ChristUchen  Lelire,  Einl.  u.  A.  §  8.  3,  5th  edit.  Bonn  1844,  p.  18. 


§2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  51 

speculative  truth,  or  some  liistorical  event  past  or  future  ;  or 
when  the  evidence  or  testimony  on  which  faith  is  founded  is  ad- 
dressed only  to  the  understanding  and  not  to  the  conscience  or 
to  our  emotional  or  religious  nature,  then  faith  does  not  involve 
feeling.  We  believe  the  great  mass  of  historical  facts  to  Avhich 
we  assent  as  true,  simply  on  historical  testimony,  and  Avithout 
any  feeling  entering  into,  or  necessarily  comiected  with  it.  The 
same  is  true  Avith  regard  to  a  large  part  of  the  contents  of  the 
Bible.  They,  to  a  great  extent,  are  historical,  or  the  predictions 
of  historical  events.  When  we  believe  what  the  Scriptures 
record  concerning  the  creation,  the  deluge,  the  calling  of  Abra- 
ham, the  overthrow  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  the  history  of 
Joseph,  and  the  like,  our  faith  does  not  include  feeling.  It  is 
uot  an  exercise  of  the  will  in  either  sense  of  that  word.  It  is 
simply  a  rational  conviction  founded  on  sufficient  evidence.  It 
may  be  said,  as  Aquinas  does  say,  that  it  is  love  or  reverence 
towards  God  which  inclines  the  will  to  believe  such  facts  on  the 
authority  of  his  Word.  JBut  wicked  men  believe  them,  and  can- 
not help  believing  them.  A  man  can  hardly  be  found  Avho  does 
not  believe  that  the  Israelites  dwelt  in  Egypt,  escaped  from 
bondage,  and  took  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  true  not  only  that  faith  is  in  many 
cases  inseparable  from  feeling,  but  also  that  feeling  has  much 
influence  in  determining  our  faith.  This  is  especially  true  when 
moral  and  religious  truths  are  the  objects  of  faith.  Want  of  con- 
geniality with  the  truth  produces  insensibility  to  the  evidence  by 
which  it  is  supported.  Our  Lord  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Ye  believe 
not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep."  (John  x.  26.)  And  in 
another  place,  "  If  any  man  will  do  his  Avill,  he  shall  know  of 
the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God."  (vii.  17.)  And  the  Apos- 
tle says  of  those  that  are  lost,  "  The  god  of  this  world  hath 
blinded  the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the 
glorious  gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine 
mito  them."  (2  Cor.  iv.  4.)  The  truth  was  present,  attended 
by  appropriate  and  abundant  evidence,  but  there  was  no  suscep- 
tibility. The  defect  was  in  the  organ  of  vision,  not  in  the  want 
of  light.  The  Scriptures  uniformly  refer  the  unbelief  of  those 
who  reject  the  gospel  to  the  state  of  their  hearts.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  all  the  true  children  of  God  received  Christ  as 
their  God  and  Saviour  on  the  evidence  which  He  gave  of  liis 
divine  character  and  mission,  and  that  He  was  rejected  only  by 
the  unrenewed  and  the  wicked,, and  because  of  their  wickedness. 


52,  PART  III.     Ch.  XVI  — faith. 

Hence  unbelief  is  so  great  a  sin.  Men  are  condemned  because 
they  believe  not  on  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  (John  iii.  18.) 
All  this  is  true.  It  is  true  of  saving  faith.  But  it  is  not  true  of 
all  kinds  of  even  religious  faith  ;  that  is,  of  faith  which  has  re- 
ligious truth  for  its  object.  And,  therefore,  it  cannot  furnish  the 
differentia  or  criterion  to  distinguish  faith  from  other  forms  of 
assent  to  truth.  There  are  states  of  mind  not  only  popularly, 
but  correctly  called  belief,  of  which  it  is  not  true  that  love,  or 
congeniality,  is  an  element.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  dead  faith, 
or  orthodoxy.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  speculative  faith.  Simon 
Mao-US  believed.  Even  the  devils  believe.  And  if  we  turn  to 
other  than  religious  truths  it  is  still  more  apparent  that  faith  is 
not  necessarily  a  voluntary  assent  of  the  mind.  A  man  may  hear 
of  something  most  repugnant  to  his  feelings,  as,  for  example,  of 
the  triumph  of  a  rival.  He  may  at  first  refuse  to  believe  it ;  but 
the  testimony  may  become  so  strong  as  to  force  conviction.  This 
conviction  is,  by  common  consent,  faith  or  belief.  It  is  not  sight ; 
it  is  not  intuition ;  it  is  not  a  deduction  ;  it  is  belief ;  a  conviction 
founded  on  testimony.  This  subject,  i.  e.,  the  connection  between 
faith  and  feeling,  will  come  up  again  in  considering  other  defini- 
tions. 

In  the  third  place,  if  we  take  the  word  voluntary  in  the  sense 
which  implies  volition  or  self-determination,  it  is  still  more  evi- 
dent that  faith  cannot  be  defined  as  voluntary  assent.  It  is, 
indeed,  a  proverb  that  a  man  convinced  against  his  will  remains 
unconvinced.  But  this  is  only  a  popular  way  of  expressing  the 
truth  just  conceded,  namely,  that  the  feelings  have,  in  many  cases, 
great  influence  in  determining  our  faith.  But,  as  just  remarked, 
a  man  may  be  constrained  to  believe  against  his  will.  He  may 
struggle  against  conviction  ;  he  may  determine  he  will  not  be- 
lieve, and  yet  conviction  may  be  forced  upon  him.  Napoleon,  at 
the  battle  of  Waterloo,  hears  that  Grouchy  is  approaching.  He 
gladly  believes  it.  Soon  the  report  reaches  him  that  the  advan- 
cing columns  are  Prussians.  This  he  will  not  believe.  Soon, 
however,  as  courier  after  courier  confirms  the  unwelcome  fact,  he 
is  forced  to  believe  it.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  in  faith  as 
faith  there  is  always,  as  Aquinas  says,  an  election  "  voluntarie 
declinans  in  unam  partem  magis  quam  in  alteram."  There  is 
another  frequent  experience.  We  often  hear  men  say  they  would 
give  the  world  if  they  could  believe.  The  dying  Grotius  said  he 
would  give  all  his  learning  for  the  simple  faith  of  his  unlettered 
servant.     To  tell  a  man  he  can  believe  if  he  ^\dll  is  to  contradict 


§  2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  53 

his  consciousness.  He  tries  to  believe.  He  earnestly  prays  for 
faith  ;  bnt  he  cannot  exercise  it.  It  is  true,  as  concerns  the  sin- 
ner in  relation  to  the  gospel,  that  this  inability  to  believe  arises 
from  the  state  of  his  mind.  But  this  state  of  the  mind  lies  below 
the  will.  It  cannot  be  determined  or  changed  by  the  exercise  of 
any  voluntary  power.  On  these  grounds  the  definition  of  faith, 
whether  as  generic  or  religious,  as  a  voluntary  assent  to  truth, 
must  be  considered  unsatisfactory. 

Definitions  founded  on  the  Object  of  Faith. 

The  preceding  definitions  are  all  founded  on  the  assumed  sub- 
jective nature  of  faith.  The  next  definition  is  of  a  different  kind. 
It  is  founded  on  the  nature  of  its  object.  Faith  is  said  to  be  the 
persuasion  of  the  truth  of  things  not  seen.  This  is  a  very  old  and 
familiar  definition.  "  Quid  est  fides,"  asks  Augustine,^  "  nisi  cre- 
dere quod  non  vides."  And  Lombard  ^  says,  "  Fides  est  virtus 
qua  creduntur  quae  non  videntur."  Hence  faith  is  said  to  be 
swallowed  up  in  vision ;  and  the  one  is  contrasted  with  the  other ; 
as  when  the  Apostle  says,  "  We  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight." 
And  in  Hebrews,  eleventh  chapter,  all  the  objects  of  faith  under 
the  aspect  in  which  it  is  considered  in  that  chapter,  are  included 
under  the  categories  of  ra  iX-n-iloiieva  and  to.  ov  ^Xe-n-ofxeva,  "things 
hoped  for,  and  things  not  seen."  The  latter  includes  the  former. 
"  We  hope,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  for  that  we  see  not,"  (Romans 
viii.  25.)  The  word  sight,  in  this  connection,  may  be  taken  in 
three  senses.  First,  in  its  literal  sense.  We  are  not  said  to  be- 
lieve what  we  see  with  our  eyes.  What  we  see  we  know  to  be 
true.  We  believe  that  the  planet  Saturn  is  surrounded  by  a  belt, 
and  that  Jupiter  has  four  satellites,  on  the  unanimous  testimony 
of  astronomers.  But  if  we  look  through  a  telescope  and  see  the 
belt  of  the"  one  and  the  satellites  of  the  other,  our  faith  passes 
into  knowledge.  We  believe  there  is  such  a  city  as  Rome,  and 
that  it  contains  the  Colosseum,  Trajan's  Arch,  and  other  monu- 
men1;s  of  antiquity.  If  we  visit  that  city  and  see  these  things  for 
ourselves,  our  faith  becomes  knowledge.  The  conviction  is  no 
stronger  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  We  are  just  as  sure 
there  is  such  a  city  before  having  seen  it,  as  though  we  had  been 
there  a  hundred  times.  But  the  conviction  is  of  a  different  kind. 
Secondly,  the  mind  is  said  to  see  when  it  perceives  an  object  of 

1  In  Joannis  Evanyelium  Tractatus,  XL.  9;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol. 
iii.  p.  2088  b. 

2  Liber  Sent entia rum,  iii.  xxiii.  B.,  edit.  1472(?). 


64  PART  ni.   Ch.  XVI.  — faith. 

tliouglit  to  be  true  in  its  own  light,  or  by  its  own  radiance.    This 
mental  vision  may  be  either  immediate  or  mediate  —  either  intui- 
tive or  through  a  process  of  proof.     A  child  may  believe  that  the 
angles  of  a  triangle  are  together  equal  to  two  right  angles,  on 
the  authority  of  his  teacher.     When  he  understands  the  demon- 
stration of  that  proposition,  his  faith  becomes  knowledge.     He 
sees  it  to  be  true.     The  objects  of  sense-perception,  the  objects  of 
intuition,  and  what  we  recognize  as  true  on  a  process  of  proof, 
are  not,  according  to  this  definition  of  the  term,  objects  of  faith. 
We  know  what  we  see  to  be  true ;  we  believe  when  we  recognize 
as  true  what  we  do  not  see.     It  is  true  that  the  same  thing  may 
be  an  object  of  faith  and  an  object  of  knowledge,  but  not  at  the 
same  time.     We  may  recognize  as  true  the  being  of  God,  or  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  because  the  propositions,  "God  is,"  "  the 
soul  is  immortal,"  are  susceptible  of  proof.     The  arguments  in 
support  of  those  propositions  may  completely  satisfy  our  minds. 
But  they  are  truths  of  revelation  to  be  believed  on  the  authority 
of  God.    These  states  of  mind  which  we  call  knowledge  and  faith, 
are  not  identical,  neither  are  they  strictly  coexisting.     The  effect 
produced  by  the  demonstration  is  one  thing.     The  effect  produced 
by  the  testimony  of  God's  word,  is  another  thing.     Both  include 
a  persuasion  of  the  truth.      But  that  persuasion  is  in  its  nature 
different  in  the  one  case  from  what  it  is  in  the  other,  as  it  rests 
on  different  grounds.     When  the  arguments  are  before  the  mind, 
the  conviction  which  they  produce  is  knowledge.     When  the  tes- 
timony of  God  is  before  the  mind,  the  conviction  which  it  pro- 
duces is  faith.     On  this  subject  Thomas  Aquinas  says,^  "  Neces- 
sarium  est  homini  accipere  per  modum  fidei  non  solum  ea,  quae 
sunt  supra  rationem  :  seel  etiam  ea,  qua  per  rationem  cognosci 
possunt.     Et  hoc  propter  tria,  Primo  quidem,  ut  citius  homo  ad 

veritatis  divinae  cognitionem  perveniat Secundo,  ut  cog- 

nitio  Dei  sit  communior.     Multi  enim  in  studio  scientiffi  proficere 

non  possunt Tertio  modo  propter  certitudinem.     Ratio 

enim  humana  in  rebus  divinis  est  multum  deficiens." 

Thirdly,  under  the  "  things  not  seen,"  some  would  include  all 
things  not  present  to  the  mind.  A  distinction  is  made  between 
presentative  and  representative  knowledge.  In  the  former  the 
object  is  present  at  the  time  ;  we  perceive  it,  we  are  conscious  of 
it.  In  representative  knowledge  there  is  an  object  now  present, 
representing  an  absent  object.  Thus  we  have  the  conception  of 
a  person  or  thing.     That  conception  is  present,  but  the  thing 

1  Summa,  n.  ii.  quscst.  ii.  art.  4,  edit.  Cologne,  1630,  pp.  6  b,'  i,  of  third  set. 


§  2]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  55 

represeiited  is  absent.  It  is  not  before  the  mind.  It  belongs  to 
the  category  of  things  not  seen.  The  conception  which  is  present 
is  the  object  of  knowledge  ;  the  thing  represented  is  an  object  of 
faith.  That  is,  we  know  we  have  the  conception;  we  believe  that 
the  thing  which  it  represents,  does  or  did  exist.  If  we  visit  a 
particular  place  while  present  to  our  senses  we  know  that  it  ex- 
ists ;  when  we  come  away  and  form  an  idea  or  conception  of  it, 
that  is,  when  we  recall  it  by  an  effort  of  memory,  then  we  be- 
lieve in  its  existence.  "  Whenever  we  have  passed  beyond  pre- 
sentative  knowledge,  and  are  assured  of  the  reabty  of  an  absent 
object,  there  faith  ....  has  entered  as  an  element."^ 

Sir  William  Hamilton  ^  says,  "  Properly  speaking,  we  know 
only  the  actual  and  the  present,  and  all  real  knowledge  is  an  im- 
mediate  knowledge.  What  is  said  to  be  mediately  known,  is,  in 
truth,  not  known  to  be,  but  -only  believed  to  be."  This,  it  may 
be  remarked  in  passing,  would  apply  to  all  the  propositions  of 
Euclid.  For  they  are  "  mediately  known,"  i.  e.,  seen  to  be  true 
by  means  of  a  process  of  proof.  Speaking  of  memory,  Hamilton 
says,  "  It  is  not  a  knowledge  of  the  past  at  all ;  but  a  knowledge 
of  the  present  and  a  belief  of  the  j)ast."  "  We  are  said,"  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  McCosh,  "to  know  ourselves,  and  the  objects  presented 
to  the  senses  and  the  representations  (always  however  as  presen- 
tations) in  the  mind  ;  but  to  believe  in  objects  which  we  have 
seen  in  time  past,  but  which  are  not  now  present,  and  in  objects 
which  we  have  never  seen,  and  very  specially  in  objects  which  we 
can  never  fully  know,  such  as  an  Infinite  God."  ^ 

Objections  to  this  Definition. 

According  to  this  view,  we  know  what  is  present  to  the  mind, 
and  believe  what  is  absent.  The  first  objection  to  this  repre- 
sentation is  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  present  and  absent  as 
thus  used.  When  is  an  object  present  ?  and  when  is  it  absent  ? 
It  is  easy  to  answer  this  question  when  the  object  is  something 
material  or  an  external  event.  Such  objects  are  present  ("  pras 
sensibus  ")  when  they  affect  the  senses  ;  and  absent  when  they 
do  not.  A  city  or  building  is  present  when  we  actually  see  it ; 
absent,  when  we  leave  the  place  where  it  is,  and  recall  the  image 
of  it.  But  how  is  it  with  propositions  ?  The  Bible  says  all  men 
are  sinners.     The  truth  thus  announced  is  present  to  the  mind. 

1  McCosh,  Intuitions  of  the  Mind,  part  ii.  book  ii.  ch.  1,  edit.  New  York,  18G0,  p.  197. 

2  Lectures  on  Metaphysics  and  Logic,  vol.  i.  "Metaphysics,"  lect.  xii.  ?ub  fin  ,  edit. 
Boston,  1859,  pp.  152,  153. 

*  Intuitions  of  the  Mind,  p.  198. 


56  PART  in.   Ch.  xvl  — faith. 

We  do  not  know  it.  We  cannot  prove  it.  But  we  believe  it 
upon  the  authority  of  God.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  Clirist 
died  as  a  ransom  for  many.  Here,  not  only  the  historical  fact 
that  He  died  is  announced,  but  the  purpose  for  which  He  died. 
Here  again,  we  have  a  truth  present  to  the  mind,  which  is  an  ob- 
ject of  faith. 

The  second  objection  is  involved  in  the  first.  The  terms  pres- 
ent and  absent  are  not  only  ambiguous  in  this  connection,  but  it 
is  not  true,  as  just  stated,  that  an  object  must  be  absent  in  order 
to  be  an  object  of  faith.  The  differentia,  in  other  words,  be- 
tween knowledge  and  faith,  is  not  found  in  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  their  objects.  We  can  know  what  is  absent,  and  we  can 
believe  what  is  present. 

The  third  objection  is,  that  the  conviction  we  have  of  the  real- 
ity or  truth  of  what  we  distinctly  remember  is  knowledge,  and 
not  distinctively  faith,  unless  we  choose  to  establish  a  new  and 
arbitrary  definition  of  the  word  knowledge.  We  know  what  is 
perceived  by  the  senses ;  we  know  what  the  mind  sees,  either  in- 
tuitively or  discursively,  is  and  must  be  true ;  and  we  know  what 
we  distinctly  remember.  The  conviction  is  in  all  these  cases  of 
the  same  nature.  In  all  it  resolves  itself  into  confidence  in  the 
veracity  of  consciousness.  We  are  conscious  that  we  perceive 
sensible  objects.  We  are  conscious  that  we  cognize  certain 
truths.  We  are  conscious  that  we  remember  certain  events. 
In  all  these  cases  this  consciousness  involves  the  conviction  of 
the  reality  or  truth  of  what  is  seen,  mentally  apprehended  or 
remembered.  This  conviction  is,  or  may  be,  as  strong  in  any 
one  of  these  cases  as  in  either  of  the  others ;  and  it  rests  in  all 
ultimately  on  the  same  ground.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason 
for  calling  one  knowledge  and  the  other  belief.  Memory  is  as 
much  a  knowledge  of  the  past,  as  other  forms  of  consciousness 
are  a  knowledge  of  the  present. 

The  fourth  objection  is  that  to  deny  that  memory  gives  us  the 
knowledge  of  the  past,  is  contrary  to  established  usage.  It  is 
true  we  are  said  to  believe  that  we  remember  such  and  such 
events,  when  we  are  uncertain  about  it.  But  this  is  because  in 
one  of  the  established  meanings  of  the  word,  behef  expresses  a 
less  degree  of  certainty  than  knowledge.  But  men  never  speak 
of  believing  past  events  in  their  experience  concerning  which  they 
are  absolutely  certain.  We  know  that  we  were  alive  yesterday. 
No  man  says  he  believes  he  has  seen  his  father  or  mother  or  any 
intimate  friend,  whom  he  had  known  for  years.  Things  dis- 
tinctly remembered  are  known,  and  not  merely  believed. 


§2.]  ITS   PSyClIOLOGICAL  NATURE.  57 

The  definition  which  makes  faith  to  be  the  persuasion  of  the 
truth  of  tilings  not  seen,  is,  however,  correct,  if  by  "  things  not 
seen  "  are  meant  things  which  are  neither  objects  of  the  senses, 
nor  of  intuition,  nor  of  demonstrative  proof.  But  it  does  not 
seem  to  be  correct  to  inchide  among  the  "things  not  seen,"  which 
are  the  special  objects  of  faith,  things  remembered  and  not  now 
present  to  mind.  This  definition  of  faith,  while  correct  in  limit- 
ing it  as  to  its  objects  to  things  not  seen,  in  the  sense  above 
stated,  is  nevertheless  defective  in  not  assigning  the  ground  of 
our  conviction  of  their  truth.  Why  do  we  believe  things  to  be 
true,  which  we  have  never  seen  and  which  we  cannot  prove  ? 
Different  answers  are  given  to  that  question ;  and,  therefore,  the 
definition  which  gives  no  answer  to  it,  must  be  considered  de- 
fective. 

Definitions  founded  on  the  Nature  of  the  Evidence  on  which  Faith 

rests. 

Some  of  the  definitions  of  faith,  as  we  have  seen,  are  founded 
on  its  subjective  nature  ;  others  on  its  objects.  Besides  these 
there  are  others  which  seek  its  distinguishing  characteristic  in  the 
ground  on  which  the  conviction  which  it  includes,  rests.  The 
first  of  these  is  that  which  makes  faith  to  be  a  conviction  or  per- 
suasion of  truth  founded  on  feeling.  This  is  by  many  regarded 
as  the  one  most  generally  received.  Hase  ^  says,  "  Every  culti- 
vated language  has  a  word  for  that  form  of  conviction  which,  in 
opposition  to  the  seK-evident  and  demonstrable,  rests  on  moral 
and  emotional  gi'ounds."  That  word  in  Greek  is  ttio-tis;  in  Eng- 
lish "faith."  In  his  "  Hutterus  Bedivivus,"^  he  says,  "The 
common  idea  of  faith  is  :  unmittelbar  Fiirwahrhalten,  ohne  Ver- 
mittelung  eines  Schlussbeweises,  durch  Neigung  und  Bediirfniss," 
i.  e.,  "  A  persuasion  of  the  truth,  without  the  intervention  of 
argument,  determined  by  inclination  and  inward  necessity."  He 
quotes  the  definition  of  faith  by  Twesten,  as  "  a  persuasion  or 
conviction  of  truth  produced  by  feeling ;  "  and  that  of  Nitzsch, 
given  above,  "  the  unity  of  knowledge  and  feeling."  Strauss^ 
says,  "  The  way  in  which  a  man  appropriates  the  contents  of  a 
revelation,  the  inward  assent  which  he  yields  to  the  contents  of 
the  Scriptures  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  not  because  of 
critical  or  philosophical  research,  but  often  in  opposition  to  them, 

1  Dogmatih,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1842,  p.  307. 

2  Sixth  edit.  Leipzig,  1845,  p.  4. 

8  Dogmatih,  §  20,  edit.  Tubingen  and  Stuttgart,  1840,  vol.  i.  p.  282. 


68  PART  III.     Ch.   XVI. —  faith. 

overpowered  by  a  feeling  wliicli  the  Evangelical  Churcli  calls 
tlie  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  but  which  in  fact  is  only  the  percep- 
tion of  the  identity  of  his  own  religious  life  with  that  portrayed 
in  the  Scripture  and  prevailing  in  the  Church,  —  this  assent  deter- 
mined by  feeling — in  ecclesiastical  language,  is  called  Faith." 
Again,^  he  says,  "  The  pious  man  receives  religious  truth  because 
he  feels  its  reality, (and  because  it  satisfies  his  religious  wants," 
and,  therefore,  he  adds,  "  No  religion  was  ever  propagated  by 
means  of  arguments  addressed  to  the  understanding,  or  of  histori- 
cal or  philosophical  proofs,  and  this  is  undeniably  true  of  Chris- 
tianity." Every  preacher  of  a  new  religion  assumes  in  those  to 
whom  he  presents  it,  an  unsatisfied  religious  necessity,  and  all  he 
has  to  do  is  to  make  them  feel  that  such  necessity  is  met  by  the 
religion  which  he  proposes.  Celsus,  he  tells  us,  made  it  a  ground 
of  reproach  against  the  Christians  that  they  believed  blindly  ; 
that  they  could  not  justify  the  doctrines  which  they  held  at  the 
bar  of  reason.  To  this  Origen  answered,  that  this  was  true  only 
of  the  people  ;  that  with  the  educated,  faith  was  elevated  into 
knowledge,  and  Christianity  transformed  into  a  philosophy.  The 
Church  was  divided  between  behevers  and  knowers.  The  rela- 
tion between  faith  and  knowledge,  between  religion  and  pliiloso- 
phy,  has  been  the  subject  of  controversy  from  that  day  to  this. 
Some  took  the  ground  of  Origen  and  of  the  Alexandrian  school 
generally,  that  it  is  incumbent  on  educated  Cliristians  to  justify 
their  doctrines  at  the  bar  of  reason,  and  prove  them  to  be  true  on 
philosophical  grounds.  Others  held  that  the  truths  of  revelation 
were,  at  least  in  many  cases,  of  a  kind  which  did  not  admit  of 
philosophical  demonstration,  although  they  were  not  on  that 
account  to  be  regarded  as  contrary  to  reason,  but  only  as  beyond 
its  sphere.  Others,  again,  taught  that  there  is  a  direct  conflict 
between  faith  and  knowledge  ;  that  what  the  believing  Christian 
holds  to  be  true,  can  be  shown  by  the  philosopher  to  be  false. 
This  is  Strauss's  own  doctrine,  and,  therefore,  he  concludes  his 
long  discussion  of  this  point  by  saying,  "  The  believer  should  let 
the  knower  go  his  own  way  in  peace,  just  as  the  knower  does  the 
believer.  "We  leave  them  their  faith,  let  them  leave  us  our  phi- 
losophy  There  have  been  enough  of  false  irenical  at- 
tempts. Henceforth  only  separation  of  opposing  principles  can 
lead  to  any  good."^  On  the  same  page  he  admits  the  great 
truth,  "  That  human  nature  has  one  excellent  characteristic : 
what  any  man  feels  is  for  him  a  spiritual  necessity,  he  allows  no 
man  to  take  from  him." 

1  Dogmatik,  edit.  Tubingen  and  Stuttgart,  1840,  vol.  i.  p.  298.  2  Jf^l,  p.  358. 


§2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  59 

Remarks  on  this  Definition. 

With  resrarcl  to  the  definition  of  faith  which  makes  it  a  convic- 
tion  founded  on  feehng,  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

First,  That  there  are  forms  of  faith  of  which  this  is  not  true. 
As  remarked  above,  when  treating  of  the  cognate  definition  of 
faith  as  a  vohintary  assent  of  the  mind,  it  is  not  true  of  faith 
in  general.  We  often  believe  unwillingly,  and  what  is  utterly 
repugnant  to  our  feelings. 

Secondly,  It  is  not  true  even  of  religious  faith,  or  faith  which 
has  religious  truth  for  its  object.  For  there  may  be  faith  with- 
out love,  i.  e.,  a  speculative,  or  dead  faith. 

Thirdly,  It  is  not  true  of  many  of  the  exercises  of  faith  in  good 
men.  Isaac  believed  that  Jacob  would  be  preferred  to  Esau, 
sorely  against  his  will.  Jacob  believed  that  his  descendants 
would  be  slaves  in  Egypt.  The  prophets  believed  in  the  seventy 
years  captivity  of  their  countrymen.  The  Apostles  believed  that 
a  great  apostasy  in  the  Church  was  to  occur  between  their  age 
and  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord.  The  answer  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  to  this,  is,  that  a  man  is  constrained  by  his  will  Qi.  e., 
his  feelings)  to  believe  in  the  Scriptures,  and  then  he  believes  all 
the  Scriptures  contain.  So  that  his  faith,  even  in  the  class  of 
truths  just  referred  to,  rests  ultimately  on  feeling.  But  this  an- 
swer is  unsatisfactory.  For  if  the  question  is  asked,  Why  did  the 
prophets  believe  in  the  captivity,  and  the  Apostles  in  the  apos- 
tasy ?  the  answer  would  be,  not  from  the  effect  of  these  truths 
upon  their  feelings,  but  on  the  authority  of  God.  And  if  it  be 
further  asked.  Why  did  they  believe  the  testimony  of  God  ?  the 
answer  may  be  because  God's  testimony  carries  conviction.  He 
can  make  his  voice  heard  even  by  the  deaf  or  the  dead.  Or,  the 
answer  may  be,  because  they  were  good  men.  But  in  either  case, 
the  question  carries  us  beyond  the  ground  of  their  faith.  They 
believe  because  God  had  revealed  the  facts  referred  to.  Their 
goodness  may  have  rendered  them  susceptible  to  the  evidence 
afforded,  but  it  did  not  constitute  that  evidence. 

Fourthly,  It  is  admitted  that  the  exercise  of  saving  faith,  i.  e., 
of  that  faith  which  is  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  and  product  of  re- 
generation, is  attended  by  feeling  appropriate  to  its  object.  But 
this  is  to  be  referred  to  the  nature  of  the  object.  If  we  believe  a 
good  report,  the  effect  is  joy  ;  if  an  evil  report,  the  effect  is  sor- 
row. The  perception  of  beauty  produces  delight ;  of  nioral  ex- 
3ellence,  a  glow  of  approbation  ;  of  spiritual  things,  in  many  cases, 
a  joy  that  is  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory. 


60  PART  m.  Ch.  xvl  — faith. 

Fifthly,  It  is  also  true  that  all  these  truths,  if  not  all  truth, 
have  a  self -evidencing  light,  which  cannot  be  apprehended  with- 
out a  conviction  that  it  really  is  what  it  is  apprehended  as  being. 
It  may  also  be  admitted,  that  so  far  as  the  consciousness  of  true 
behevers  is  concerned,  the  evidence  of  truth  is  the  truth  itself  ; 
in  other  words,  that  the  ground  of  their  faith  is,  in  one  sense, 
subjective.  They  see  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  therefore  believe  that  He  is  God  manifested  in  the 
flesh.  They  see  that  the  representations  made  by  the  Scriptures 
of  the  sinfulness,  guilt,  and  helplessness  of  fallen  man,  correspond 
with  their  own  inward  experience,  and  they  are  therefore  con- 
strained to  receive  these  representations  as  true.  They  see  that 
the  plan  of  salvation  proposed  in  the  Bible  suits  their  necessities, 
their  moral  judgments  and  religious  aspirations,  they  therefore 
embrace  it.  All  this  is  true,  but  it  does  not  prove  faith  to  be 
a  conviction  founded  on  feeling  ;  for  there  are  many  forms  of 
faith  which  confessedly  are  not  founded  on  feeling ;  and  even  in 
the  case  of  true  believers,  their  feelings  are  not  the  ultimate 
ground  of  faith.  They  always  fall  back  on  the  authority  of  God, 
who  is  regarded  as  the  author  of  these  feelings,  through  which 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  revealed  to  the  consciousness.  "  We 
may  be  moved  and  induced,"  says  the  "  Westminster  Confes- 
sion,"^ "  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  an  high  and  reverend 
esteem  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  mat- 
ter, the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  con- 
sent of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's 
salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellences,  and  the  en- 
tire perfection  thereof,  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly 
evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our 
full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine 
authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts."  The  ulti- 
mate ground  of  faith,  therefore,  is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit. 

Faith  a  Conviction  of  the  Truth  founded  on  Testimony^ 

The  only  other  definition  of  faith  to  be  considered,  is  that 
which  makes  it,  a  conviction  of  truth  founded  on  testimony.  We 
have  already  seen  that  Augustine  says,  "  We  know  what  rests 
upon  reason  ;  we  believe  what  rests  upon  authority."  A  defini- 
tion to  which  Sir  William  Hamilton  gives  his  adhesion.''^    In  the 

1  Chapter  i.  §  5.  -2  See  page  46. 


§2.]  ITS   PSYCHOLOGICAL   NATURE.  61 

Alexandrian  Scliool  also,  the  Christian  ttio-tis,  was  Anctoritiits- 
Glaube,  a  faith  founded  on  authority,  opposed,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  the  heathen  imaT-tjixr],  and  on  the  other  to  the  Christian  yiwo-ts, 
or  philosophical  explanation  and  proof  of  the  truths  believed. 
Among  the  school-men  also,  this  was  the  prevalent  idea.  When 
they  defined  faith  to  be  the  persuasion  of  things  not  seen,  they 
meant  things  which  we  receive  as  true  on  authority,  and  not  be- 
cause we  either  know  or  can  prove  them.  Hence  it  was  constant- 
ly said,  faith  is  human  when  it  rests  on  the  testimony  of  men  ; 
divine  when  it  rests  on  the  testimony  of  God.  Thomas  Aquinas  ^ 
says,  "  Non  fides,  de  qua  loquimur,  assentit  alicui,  nisi  quia  est  a 
Deo  revelatum."  "  Faith,  of  which  we  speak,  assents  to  nothing 
except  because  it  is  revealed  by  God."  We  believe  on  the  author- 
ity of  God,  and  not  because  we  see,  know,  or  feel  a  thing  to  be 
true.  This  is  the  purport  of  the  teaching  of  the  great  body  of 
the  scholastic  divines.  Sucli  also  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Reform- 
ers, and  of  the  theologians  of  the  subsequent  age,  botli  Lutheran 
and  Reformed.  Speaking  of  assent,  which  he  regards  as  the  sec- 
ond act  or  element  of  faith,  Aquinas  says,  "  Hie  actus  fidei  non 
rerum  evidentia  aut  caiisarum  et  proprietatum  notitia,  sed  Dei 
dicentis  infalHbili  auctoritate."  Turrettin^  says,  "Non  quferitur, 
An  fides  sit  scientia,  qure  habeat  evidentiam  :  Sic  enim  distin- 
guitur  a  scientia,  quas  habet  assensum  certum  et  evidentem,  qui 
nititur  ratione  clara  et  certa,  et  ab  opinione,  quae  nititur  ra- 
tione  tantum  probabili ;  ubi  fides  notat  assensum  certum  quidem, 
sed  inevidentem,  qui  non  ratione,  sed  testimonio  divino  nititur." 
De  Moor  ^  says,  "  Fides  subjectiva  est  persuasio  de  veritate  rei, 
alterius  testimonio  nixa,  quomodo  fides  ilia  generatira  descripta, 

scientiaa  et  conjecturie  opponitur Dividitur  ....  in 

fidem  divinam,  quae  nititur  testimonio  divino,  et  humanam,  quse 
fundata  est  in  testimonio  humano  fide  accepto."  Owen,*  "  All 
faith  is  an  assent  upon  testimony ;  and  divine  faith  is  an  assent 
upon  a  divine  testimony."  John  Howe^  asks,  "Why  do  I  be- 
lieve Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  ?  Because  the  eternal  God  hath  e-iven 
his  testimony  concerning  Him  that  so  He  is."  "  A  man's  behev- 
ing  comes  all  to  nothing  without  this,  that  there  is  a  divine  testi- 
mony."    Again,^  "  I  believe  such  a  thing,  as  God  reveals  it,  be- 

1  Summa,  ii.  ii.  quasst.  i.  art.  1,  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  2,  a,  of  third  set. 
^  Institutio,  XV.  ix.  3,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  497. 

3  Commentanus  in  Johannis  Marckii  Compendium,  cap.  xxii.  §  4,  Leyden,  1766,  vol.  iv 
p.  299. 
*  Doctrine  of  Justification,  ch.  i.  edit.  Philadelphia,  1841,  p.  84. 
5  Worhs,  vol.  ii.  p.  885,  Carter's  edition,  New  York,  1869.  6  Ibid.  p.  1170. 


62  PART  m.   ch.  xvl  — faith. 

cause  it  is  reported  to  me  upon  the  authority  of  God."  Bishop 
Pearson  ^  says,  "  When  anything  propounded  to  us  is  neither 
apparent  to  our  sense,  nor  evident  to  our  understanding,  in  and 
of  itself,  neither  certainly  to  be  collected  from  any  clear  and 
necessary  connection  "vvith  the  cause  from  which  it  proceedeth,  or 
the  effects  which  it  naturally  produceth,  nor  is  taken  up  upon  any 
real  arguments  or  reference  to  other  acknowledged  truths,  and  yet 
notwithstanding  appeareth  to  us  true,  not  by  a  manifestation, 
but  attestation  of  the  truth,  and  so  moveth  us  to  assent  not  of 
itself,  but  by  virtue  of  the  testimony  given  to  it ;  this  is  said 
properly  to  be  credible  ;  and  an  assent  unto  this,  upon  such  cred 
ibiUty,  is  in  the  proper  notion  faith  or  behef." 

This  View  almost  universally  Held. 

This  view  of  the  nature  of  faith  is  all  but  universally  received, 
not  by  theologians  only,  but  by  philosophers,  aiid  the  mass  of 
Christian  people.  The  great  question  has  ever  been,  whether 
we  are  to  receive  truth  on  authority,  or  only  ujDon  rational  evi- 
dence. Leibnitz  begins  his  "  Discours  de  la  Conformity  de  la  Foi 
avec  la  Raison,"  by  saying,  "  Je  suppose,  que  deux  v^rites  ne 
sauroient  se  contredire ;  que  I'objet  de  la  foi  est  la  verite  que 
Dieu  a  r^vel^e  d'une  mani^re  extraordinaire,  et  que  la  raison  est 
renchainment  des  veritds,  mais  particulierement  (lorsqu'elle  est 
compares  avec  la  foi)  de  celles  ou  I'esprit  liumain  pent  atteindre 
naturellement,  sans  etre  aid^  des  lumieres  de  la  foi."  ^ 
''  It  has  already  been  admitted  that  the  essential  element  of 
faith  is  trust ;  and,  therefore,  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word  to 
believe,  is  to  trust.  Faith  is  the  reliance  of  the  mind  on  any- 
thing as  true  and  worthy  of  confidence.  In  this  wide  sense  of 
the  word,  it  matters  not  what  may  be  the  objects,  or  what  the 
grounds  of  this  trust.  The  word,  however,  is  commonly  used  in 
reference  to  truths  which  we  receive  on  trust  without  being  able 
to  prove  them.  Thus  we  are  said  to  believe  in  our  own  exist- 
ence, the  reality  of  the  external  world,  and  all  the  primary 
truths  of  the  reason.  These  by  common  consent  are  called  be- 
liefs. Reason  begins  with  believing,  ^.  e.,  with  taking  on  trust 
what  it  neither  comprehends  nor  proves.  Again,  it  has  been 
admitted  that  the  Avord  belief  is  often  and  legitimately  used  to 
express  a  degree  of  certainty  less  than  knowledge  and  stronger 
than  probability  ;  as  when  we  say,  we  are  not  siu'e,  but  we  be 
lieve  that  a  certain  thing  happened. 

1  An  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  7th  edit.  London,  1701,  p.  3. 
'■«  Theodicee,  Works,  edit.  Berlin,  1810,  1839,  part  ii.  p.  479. 


2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL  NATURE.  63 

The  Strict  Sense  of  the  Word  "  Faith" 
ut  in  the  strict  and  special  sense  of  the  word,  as  disenml- 
nated  from  laiowledge  or  opinion,  faith  means  the  behef  of 
things  not  seen,  on  the  ground  of  testimony.  By  testimony, 
however,  is  not  meant  merely  the  affirmation  of  an  intelligent 
witness.  There  are  other  methods  by  which  testimony  may  be 
given  than  affirmation.  A  seal  is  a  form  of  testimony  ;  so  is  a 
sign.  So  is  everything  which  pledges  the  authority  of  the  at- 
tester  to  the  truth  to  be  established.  When  Elijah  declared  that 
Jehovah  was  God,  and  Baal  a  lie,  he  said,  "  The  God  that  an- 
swereth  by  fire,  let  him  be  God."  The  descent  of  the  fire  was 
the  testimony  of  God  to  the  truth  of  the  prophet's  declaration. 
So  in  the  New  Testament  God  is  said  to  have  borne  witness  to 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel  by  signs,  and  wonders,  and  divers  mira- 
cles, and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Heb.  ii.  4)  ;  and  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  said  to  witness  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of 
God  (Rom.  viii.  16).  The  word  in  these  cases  is  /xaprupe'w,  to 
testify.  This  is  not  a  lax  or  improper  use  of  the  word  testi- 
mony ;  for  an  affirmation  is  testimony  only  because  it  pledges  the 
authority  of  him  who  makes  it  to  the  truth.  And  therefore 
whatever  pledges  that  authority,  is  as  truly  of  the  nature  of  tes- 
timony, as  an  affirmation.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  faith 
is  founded  on  testimony,  it  is  meant  that  it  is  not  founded  on 
sense,  reason,  or  feeling,  but  on  the  authority  of  him  by  whom  it 
is  authenticated. 

Proof  from  the  Gieneral  Use  of  the  Word. 

That  such  is  the  foundation  and  the  distinctive  characteristic 
of  faith,  may  be  argued,  — 1.  From  the  general  use  of  the  word. 
We  are  said  to  know  what  we  see  or  can  prove  ;  and  to  believe 
what  we  regard  as  true  on  the  authority  of  others.  This  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  true  of  what  is  called  historical  faith.  This  includes 
a  great  deal ;  all  that  is  recorded  of  the  past ;  all  that  is  true  of 
present  actualities,  which  does  not  fall  within  the  sphere  of  our 
personal  observation  ;  all  the  facts  of  science  as  received  by  the 
masses ;  and  almost  all  the  contents  of  the  Bible,  whether  of  the 
Old  or  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Scriptures  are  a  record  of 
the  history  of  the  creation,  of  the  fall,  and  of  redemption.  The 
Old  Testament  is  the  history  of  the  preparatory  steps  of  this  re- 
demption. The  New  Testament  is  a  history  of  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promises  and  types  of  the  Old  in  the  incarnation,  life,  suf- 


64  PART  m.   Ch.  xvl— faith. 

ferings,  deatli,  and  resurrection  of  the  Son  of  God.  Wlioever 
believes  this  record  has  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true,  and  is  a 
cMld  of  God. 

Proof  from  Consciousness. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  consciousness  teaches  us  that  such  is 
the  nature  of  faith  not  only  Avhen  historical  facts  are  its  objects, 
but  when  propositions  are  the  things  believed.  The  two  indeed 
are  often  mseparable.  That  God  is  the  creator  of  the  world,  is 
both  a  fact  and  a  doctrine.  It  is  as  the  Apostle  says,  a  matter  of 
faith.  We  believe  on  the  authority  of  tlie  Scriptures,  which  de- 
clare that  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth."  That  God  set  forth  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for  our 
sins,  is  a  doctrine.  It  rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  God.  We 
receive  it  upon  his  testimony.  So  with  all  the  great  doctrines  of 
grace  ;  of  regeneration,  of  justification,  of  sanctification,  and  of  a 
future  life.  How  do  Ave  know  that  God  will  accept  all  who  be- 
lieve in  Christ  ?  Who  can  know  the  things  of  God,  save  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  he  to  whom  the  Spirit  shall  reveal  them  (1 
Cor.  ii.  10,  11)  ?  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  "  the  things  of 
the  Spirit,"  the  thoughts  and  purposes  of  God,  can  be  known 
only  by  revelation,  and  they  can  be  received  only  on  the  author- 
ity of  God.     They  are  objects  neither  of  sense  nor  of  reason. 

Proof  from  Scripture. 

3.  It  is  the  uniform  teaching  of  the  Bible  that  faith  is  founded 
on  the  testimony  or  authority  of  God. 

The  first  proof  of  this  is  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  come 
to  us  under  the  form  of  a  revelation  of  things  we  could  not 
otherwise  know.  The  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
messengers,  the  mouth  of  God,  to  declare  what  the  people  were 
to  believe  and  what  they  were  to  do.  The  New  Testament  is 
called  "  The  testimony  of  Jesus."  Christ  came,  not  as  a  philos- 
opher, but  as  a  witness.  He  said  to  Nicodemus,  "  We  speak 
that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen  ;  and  ye  receive 
not  our  witness."    (John  iii.  11).     "  He  that  cometh  from  above 

is  above  all And  what  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  that  he 

testifieth;  and  no  man  receiveth  his  testimony.  He  that  hath 
received  his  testimony  hath  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true  " 
(verses  31-33).  In  like  manner  the  Apostles  were  witnesses. 
As  such  they  were  ordained  (Luke  xxiv.  48).  After  his  resur- 
rection, and  immediately  before  his  ascension,  our  Lord  said  to 
them,    "  Ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 


§  2.]  ITS  PSYCHOLOGICAL   NATURE.  65 

come  upon  you  :  and  ye  shall  be  Avitnesses  unto  mc,  both  in 
Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the 
uttermost  part  of  the  earth."  (Acts  i.  8).  When  they  de- 
clared the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  facts  to  be  be- 
lieved, they  said,  "  Whereof  we  are  witnesses "  (Acts  ii.  32, 
iii.  15,  V.  32).  In  this  last  passage  the  Apostles  say  they  were 
witnesses  not  only  of  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  but  that 
God  had  "  exalted  "  Him  "  mtli  his  right  hand  to  be  a  prince 
and  a  saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness 
of  sins."  See  Acts  x.  39-43,  where  it  is  said,  "  He  commanded 
us  to  preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he  which 
was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  judge  of  quick  and  dead.  To  him 
give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 

The  great  complaint  against  the  Apostles,  especially  m  the 
Grecian  cities,  was  that  they  did  not  present  their  doctrines  as 
propositions  to  be  proved  ;  they  did  not  even  state  the  philosoph- 
ical grounds  on  which  they  rested,  or  attempt  to  sustain  them  at 
the  bar  of  reason.  The  answer  given  to  this  objection  by  St. 
Paul  is  twofold  :  First,  that  philosophy,  the  wisdom  of  men, 
had  proved  itself  utterly  incompetent  to  solve  the  great  problems 
of  God  and  the  universe,  of  sin  and  redemption.  It  was  in  fact 
neither  more  nor  less  than  foolishness,  so  far  as  all  its  specula- 
tions as  to  the  things  of  God  were  concerned.  Secondly,  that  the 
doctrines  which  He  taught  were  not  the  truths  of  reason,  but 
matters  of  revelation  ;  to  be  received  not  on  rational  or  philo- 
sophical grounds,  but  upon  the  authority  of  God  ;  that  they,  the 
Apostles,  were  not  philosophers,  but  witnesses  ;  that  they  did  not 
argue  using  the  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  that  they  simply 
declared  the  counsels  of  God,  and  that  faith  in  their  doctrines 
was  to  rest  not  on  the  msdom  of  men,  but  on  the  powerful  testi- 
mony of  God. 

The  second  proof,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  faith  is  the 
reception  of  truth  on  the  ground  of  testimony  or  on  the  author- 
ity of  God,  is,  that  the  thing  which  we  are  commanded  to  do,  is 
to  receive  the  record  which  God  has  given  of  his  Son.  This  is 
faith ;  receiving  as  true  what  God  has  testified,  and  because  He 
has  testified  it.  "  He  that  believeth  not  God  hath  made  him  a 
Har ;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his 

Son.  The  Greek  here  is,  ou  TreTrc'o-TenK-er   ets  ti]V  fj-apTvpiav   rjv  fji.ejj.ap' 

TvprjKev  6  ©COS  -rrep]  tov  vlov  avrov,  "  bcHeveth  not  the  testimony  which 
God  testified  concerning  his  Son."     "  And  this  is  the  testimony, 


66  PART  m.      Cn.  XVI.  — FAITH. 

(r]  fiapTvpLo)  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is 
in  his  Son  "  (1  John  v.  10,  11).  There  could  hardly  be  a  more 
distinct  statement  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of 
faith.  Its  object  is  what  God  has  revealed.  Its  ground  is  the 
testimony  of  God.  To  receive  that  testimony,  is  to  set  to  our 
seal  that  God  is  true.  To  reject  it,  is  to  make  God  a  liar.  "  If 
we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater :  for 
this  is  the  witness  of  God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his  son." 

Such  is  the  constant  teaching  of  Scripture.  The  ground  on 
which  we  are  authorized  and  commanded  to  believe  is,  not  the 
conformity  of  the  truth  revealed  to  our  reason,  nor  its  effect  upon 
our  feelings,  nor  its  meeting  the  necessities  of  our  nature  and  con- 
dition, but  simply,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  The  truths  of  reve- 
lation do  commend  themselves  to  the  reason ;  they  do  powerfully 
and  rightfully  affect  our  feelings  ;  they  do  meet  all  the  necessities 
of  our  nature  as  creatures  and  as  sinners ;  and  these  considerations 
may  incline  us  to  believe,  may  strengthen  our  faith,  lead  us  to 
cherish  it,  and  render  it  joyful  and  effective  ;  but  they  are  not  its 
ground.     We  believe  on  the  testimony  or  authority  of  God. 

It  is  objected  to  this  view  that  we  believe  the  Bible  to  be  the 
Word  of  God  on  other  ground  than  testimony.  The  fulfilment 
of  prophecies,  the  miracles  of  its  authors,  its  contents,  and  the 
effects  which  it  produces,  are  rational  grounds  for  believing  it  to 
be  from  God.  To  this  objection  two  answers  may  be  made  :  First, 
that  supernatural  occurrences,  such  as  prophecies  and  miracles, 
are  some  of  the  forms  in  which  the  divine  testimony  is  given. 
Paul  says  that  God  bears  "  witness  both  ^^nth.  signs  and  wonders  " 
(Hebrews  ii.  4).  And,  secondly,  that  the  proximate  end  of  these 
manifestations  of  supernatural  foresight  and  power  was  to  authen- 
ticate the  divine  mission  of  the  messengers  of  God.  This  being 
established,  the  people  were  called  upon  to  receive  their  message 
and  to  believe  on  the  authority  of  God,  by  whom  they  were  sent. 

The  third  proof,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  faith  is  a  re- 
ception of  truth  on  the  ground  of  testimony,  is  found  in  the 
examples  and  illustrations  of  faith  given  in  the  Scriptures.  Im- 
mediately after  the  fall  the  promise  was  made  to  our  first  parents 
that  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  On 
what  possible  ground  could  faith  in  this  promise  rest  except  on 
the  authority  of  God.  When  Noah  was  warned  of  God  of  the 
coming  deluge,  and  commanded  to  prepare  the  ark,  he  believed, 
not  because  he  saw  the  signs  of  the  approaching  flood,  not  be- 
cause his  moral  judgment  assured  him  that  a  just  God  would  in 


§3.]  DIFFERENT  KINDS    OF   FAITH.  67 

that  Avay  avenge  his  violated  law  ;  but  simply  on  the  testimony 
of  God.  Thus  when  God  promised  to  Abraham  the  possession  of 
the  land  of  Canaan,  that  he,  a  childless  old  man,  should  become 
the  father  of  many  nations,  that  through  his  seed  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  should  be  blessed,  his  faith  could  have  no  other  founda- 
tion than  the  authority  of  God.  So  of  every  illustration  of  faith 
given  by  the  Apostle  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  The  same  is  true  of  the  whole  Bible.  We  have  no 
foundation  for  our  faith  in  a  spiritual  world,  in  the  heaven  and 
hell  described  in  Scripture,  in  the  doctrines  of  redemption,  in  the 
security  and  ultimate  triumph  of  the  Church  other  than  the  testi- 
mony of  God.  If  faith  does  not  rest  on  testimony  it  has  nothing 
on  which  to  rest.  Paul  tells  us  that  the  whole  Gospel  rests  on 
the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead.  If  Christ  be  not 
risen  our  faith  is  vain,  and  we  are  yet  in  our  sins.  But  our  assur- 
ance that  Christ  rose  on  the  third  day  rests  solely  upon  the  testi- 
mony which  God  in  various  ways  has  given  to  that  fact. 

This  is  a  point  of  great  practical  importance.  If  faith,  or  our 
persuasion  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  rests  on  philosophical 
grounds,  then  the  door  is  opened  for  rationalism  ;  if  it  rests  on 
feeling,  then  it  is  open  to  mysticism.  Tlie  only  sure,  and  the  only 
satisfying  foundation  is  the  testimony  of  God,  who  cannot  err, 
and  who  mil  not  deceive. 

Faith  may,  therefore,  be  defined  to  be  the  persuasion  of  the 
truth  founded  on  testimony.  The  faith  of  the  Christian  is  the 
persuasion  of  the  truth  of  the  facts  and  doctrines  recorded  in 
the  Scriptures  on  the  testimony  of  God. 

§  3.  Different  Kinds  of  Faith. 

Though  the  definition  above  given  be  accepted,  it  is  to  be  ad- 
mitted that  there  are  different  kinds  of  faith.  In  other  words, 
the  state  of  mind  which  the  word  designates  is  very  different  in 
one  case  from  what  it  is  in  others.  This  difference  arises  partly 
from  the  nature  of  its  objects,  and  partly  from  the  nature  or  form 
of  the  testimony  on  which  it  is  founded.  Faith  in  a  historical 
fact  or  speculative  truth  is  one  thing ;  faith  in  aesthetic  truth 
another  thing ;  faith  in  moral  truth  another  thing  ;  faith  in  spir- 
itual truth,  and  especially  faith  in  the  promise  of  salvation  made 
to  ourselves  another  thing.  That  is,  the  state  of  mind  denomi- 
nated faith  is  very  different  in  any  one  of  these  cases  from  what 
it  is  in  the  others.  Again,  the  testimony  which  God  bears  to  the 
truth  is  of  different  kinds.     In  one  form  it  is  directed  especially 


68  PART  III.    Ch.  XVL  — faith. 

to  the  understanding ;  in  another  to  the  conscience ;  in  another 
to  our  regenerated  nature.  This  is  the  cause  of  the  difference 
between  speculative,  temporary,  and  saving  faith. 

Speculative  or  Dead  Faith. 

There  are  many  men  who  beUeve  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of 
God ;  who  receive  all  that  it  teaches  ;  and  who  are  perfectly  or- 
thodox in  their  doctrinal  belief.  If  asked  why  they  believe,  they 
may  be  at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  Reflection  might  enable  them 
to  say  they  believe  because  others  believe.  They  receive  their 
faith  by  inheritance.  They  were  taught  from  their  earliest  years 
thus  to  believe.  The  Church  to  which  they  belong  inculcates 
this  faith,  and  it  is  enjoined  upon  them  as  true  and  necessary. 
Others  of  greater  culture  may  say  that  the  evidence  of  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Bible,  both  external  and  internal,  satisfies  their 
minds,  and  produces  a  rational  con\dction  that  the  Scriptures  are 
a  revelation  from  God,  and  they  receive  its  contents  on  his  au- 
thority. Such  a  faith  as  tliis,  experience  teaches,  is  perfectly 
compatible  with  a  worldly  or  mcked  Hfe.  This  is  what  the 
Bible  calls  a  dead  faith. 

Temporary  FaitTi. 

Again,  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  the  Gospel  to  produce 
a  temporary  impression,  more  or  less  deep  and  lasting.  Those 
thus  impressed  believe.  But,  having  no  root  in  themselves, 
sooner  or  later  they  fall  away.  It  is  also  a  common  experieaice 
that  men  utterly  indifferent  or  even  skeptical,  in  times  of  danger, 
or  on  the  near  approach  of  death,  are  deeply  convinced  of  the 
certainty  of  those  religious  truths  jDreviously  known,  but  hitherto 
disregarded  or  rejected.  This  temporary  faith  is  due  to  common 
grace  ;  that  is,  to  those  influences  of  the  Spirit  common  in  a 
measure  greater  or  less  to  all  men,  which  operate  on  the  soid 
without  renewing  it,  and  which  reveal  the  truth  to  the  conscience 
and  cause  it  to  produce  conviction. 

Saving  Faith. 

That  faith  which  secures  eternal  life ;  which  unites  us  to  Christ 
as  living  members  of  his  body  ;  which  makes  us  the  sons  of  God ; 
which  interests  us  in  all  the  benefits  of  redemption  ;  which  works 
by  love,  and  is  fruitful  in  good  works  ;  is  founded,  not  on  the 
external  or  the  moral  evidence  of  the  truth,  but  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  with  and  by  the  truth  to  the  renewed  soul. 


§3.]  DIFFERENT  KINDS   OF  FAITH.  69 

What  is  meant  hy  the  Testimony  of  the  Spirit. 

It  is  necessary,  before  going  further,  to  determine  what  is 
meant  by  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  said  to  be  the 
ground  of  saving  faith. 

God,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  testifies  to  the  truth  of  tlie  Scrip- 
tures and  of  the  doctrines  which  they  contain.  This  testimony, 
as  has  been  seen,  is  partly  external,  consisting  in  prophecies  and 
miracles,  partly  in  the  nature  of  the  truths  themselves  as  related 
to  the  intellectual  and  moral  elements  of  the  soul,  and  partly 
special  and  supernatural.  Unrenewed  men  may  feel  the  power 
of  the  two  former  kinds  of  testimony,  and  believe  mth  a  faith 
either  merely  intellectual  and  speculative,  or  with  what  may  be 
called  from  its  ground,  a  moral  faith,  which  is  only  temporary. 
The  spiritual  form  of  testimony  is  confined  to  the  regenerated. 
It  is,  of  course,  inscrutable.  The  operations  of  the  Spirit  do  not 
reveal  themselves  in  the  consciousness  othermse  than  by  their 
effects.  We  know  that  men  are  born  of  the  Spirit,  that  the 
Spirit  dwells  in  the  people  of  God  and  continually  influences 
their  thoughts,  feelings,  and  actions.  But  we  know  this  only  from 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  not  because  we  are  conscious  of  his 
operations.  "  The  mnd  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  liear- 
est  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and 
whither  it  goetli:  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 
(John  iii.  8.) 

This  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  not  an  afiirmation  that  the  Bible 
is  the  Word  of  God.  Neither  is  it  the  production  of  a  blind,  un- 
intelligent conviction  of  that  fact.  It  is  not,  as  is  the  case  with 
human  testimony,  addressed  from  without  to  the  mind,  but  it  is 
within  the  mind  itself.  It  is  an  influence  designed  to  produce 
faith.  It  is  called  a  witness  or  testimony  because  it  is  so  called 
in  Scripture  ;  and  because  it  has  the  essential  nature  of  testimony, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  the  pledge  of  the  authority  of  God  in  support 
of  the  truth. 

The  effects  of  this  inward  testimony  are,  (1.)  What  the  Scrip- 
tures call  "sjpiritual  discernment."  This  means  two  things:  A 
discernment  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  and  a  discernment 
not  only  of  the  truth,  but  also  of  the  holiness,  excellence,  and 
glory  of  the  things  discerned.  The  word  spiritual,  in  this  sense, 
means  conformed  to  the  nature  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  the  law  is 
said  to  be  spiritual,  i.  e.,  holy,  just,  and  good.  (2.)  A  second 
effect  flowing  necessarily  from  the  one  just  mentioned  is  delight 


70  PART  m.  Ch.  XVI.  — faith. 

and  complacency,  or  love.  (3.)  The  appreliension  of  the  suit- 
ableness of  the  truths  revealed,  to  our  nature  and  necessities. 
(4.)  The  firm  conviction  that  these  things  are  not  only  true,  but 
divine.  (5.)  The  fruits  of  this  conviction,  i.  e.,  of  the  faith  thus 
produced,  good  Avorks,  —  holiness  of  heart  and  life. 

When,  therefore,  a  Christian  is  asked,  Why  he  believes  the 
Scriptures  and  the  doctrines  therein  contained,  his  simple  answer 
is,  On  the  testimony  or  authority  of  God.  How  else  could  he 
know  that  the  worlds  were  created  by  God,  that  our  race  aposta- 
tized from  God,  that  He  sent  his  Son  for  our  redemption,  that 
faith  in  Him  will  secure  salvation.  Faith  in  such  truths  can  have 
no  other  foundation  than  the  testimony  of  God.  If  asked,  How 
God  testifies  to  the  truth  of  the  Bible  ?  If  an  educated  man 
whose  attention  has  been  called  to  the  subject,  he  Avill  answer, 
In  every  conceivable  way :  by  signs,  wonders,  and  miracles ;  by 
the  exhibition  which  the  Bible  makes  of  divine  knowledge,  excel- 
lence, authority,  and  power.  If  an  uneducated  man,  he  may 
simply  say,  "  Whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I  see."  Such  a  man, 
and  indeed  every  true  Christian,  passes  from  a  state  of  unbelief 
to  one  of  saving  faith,  not  by  any  process  of  research  or  argument, 
but  of  inward  experience.  The  change  may,  and  often  does,  take 
place  in  a  moment.  The  faith  of  a  Christian  in  the  Bible  is,  as 
before  remarked,  analogous  to  that  which  all  men  have  in  the 
moral  law,  which  they  recognize  not  only  as  truth,  but  as  having 
the  authority  of  God.  What  the  natural  man  perceives  Avith 
regard  to  the  moral  law  the  renewed  man  is  enabled  to  perceive 
in  regard  to  "the  things  of  the  Spirit,"  by  the  testimony  of  that 
Spirit  with  and  by  the  truth  to  his  heart. 

Proof  from  Express  Declarations  of  Scripture. 

1,  That  this  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  the  subject  is  plain 
from  the  express  declarations  of  the  Scriptures.  Our  Lord  prom- 
ised to  send  the  Spirit  for  this  very  purpose.  "  He  will  reprove 
the  world  of  sin,"  especially  of  the  sin  of  not  believing  in  Christ ; 
"  and  of  righteousness,"  that  is,  of  his  righteousness,  —  the  right- 
fulness of  his  claims  to  be  regarded  and  received  as  the  Son  o'f 
God,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world ; 
"and  of  judgment,"  that  is,  of  the  final  overthrow  of  the  kingdom 
of  darkness  and  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  light.  (John  xvi.  8.) 
Faith,  therefore,  is  always  represented  in  Scripture  as  one  of  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  as  the  gift  of  God,  as  the  product  of  his  en- 
ergy (ttio-tis  -njs  ei/epyeias  tou  ®i.ov~)   (Colossians  ii.  12).     ]\Ien  are 


§3.]  DIFFERENT   KINDS   OF   FAITH.  71 

said  to  believe  in  virtue  of  tlie  same  power  which  wrought  in 
Christ,  when  God  raised  Him  from  the  dead.  (Eph  i.  19,  20.) 
The  Apostle  Paul  elaborately  sets  forth  the  ground  of  faith  in 
the  second  chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  He  declares  that  he 
relied  for  success  not  on  the  enticing  words  of  man's  Avisdom,  but 
on  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  that  the  faith  of  the 
people  might  rest  not  on  the  Avisdom  of  men,  but  on  the  power  of 
God.  Faith  was  not  to  rest  on  argument,  on  historical  or  philo- 
sophical proof,  but  on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
demonstrates  the  truth  to  the  mind,  ^.  e.,  produces  the  conviction 
that  it  is  truth,  and  leads  the  soul  to  embrace  it  with  assurance 
and  dehght.  Passages  have  already  been  quoted  which  teach 
that  faith  rests  on  the  testimony  of  God,  and  that  unbelief  con- 
sists in  rejecting  that  testimony.  The  testimony  of  God  is  given 
through  the  Spirit,  whose  office  it  is  to  take  of  the  things  of 
Christ  and  show  them  unto  us.  The  Apostle  John  tells  his  read- 
ers,  "  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 

things The    anointing  which   ye   have   received  of  him 

abideth  in  you  :  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you  :  but 
as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is  truth, 
and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall  abide  in 
him."  (1  John  ii.  20,  27.)  This  passage  teaches,  (1.)  That 
true  believers  receive  from  Christ  (the  Holy  One)  an  unction. 
(2.)  That  this  unction  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  (3.)  That  it  secures 
the  knowledge  and  conviction  of  the  truth.  (4.)  That  this  in- 
ward teaching  Avhich  makes  them  believers  is  abiding,  and  secures 
them  from  apostasy. 

1  Corinthians  ii.  14. 

Equally  explicit  is  the  passage  in  1  Corinthians  ii.  14,  "  The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them,  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned.  But  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth 
all  things,  yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no  man."  The  things  of  the 
Spirit,  are  the  things  which  the  Spirit  has  revealed.  Concerning 
these  things,  it  is  taught :  (1.)  that  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man 
does  not  receive  them.  (2.)  That  the  spiritual  man,  i.  e.,  the 
man  in  whom  the  Spirit  dwells,  does  receive  them.  (3.)  That 
the  reason  of  this  difference  is  that  the  former  has  not,  and  that 
the  latter  has,  spiritual  discernment.  (4.)  This  spiritual  dis- 
cernment is  the  apprehension  of  the  truth  and  excellence  of  the 
tilings  discerned.    (5.)  It  is  spiritual,  as  just  stated,  both  because 


72  PART  ni.   ch.  XVI.  — faith. 

due  to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  because  the  conformity  oJ 
the  truths  discerned  to  the  nature  of  the  Spirit,  is  apprehended. 

"When  Peter  confessed  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  the  Son  ol 
the  living  God,  oiu'  Lord  said,  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar- 
jona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my 
Father  Avhieh  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  xvi.  17.)  Other  men  had 
the  same  external  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  that  Peter 
had.  His  faith  was  due  not  to  that  evidence  alone,  but  to  the 
inward  testimony  of  God.  Our  Lord  rendered  thanks  that  God 
had  hidden  the  mysteries  of  his  kingdom  from  the  wise  and  pru- 
dent and  revealed  them  unto  babes.  (Matt.  xi.  25.)  The  ex- 
ternal revelation  was  made  to  both  classes.  Besides  this  external 
revelation,  those  called  babes  received  an  inward  testimony  which 
made  them  believers.  Hence  our  Lord  said.  No  man  can  come 
unto  me  except  he  be  di-awn  or  taught  of  God.  (John  vi.  44,  45.) 
The  Apostle  tells  us  that  the  same  Gospel,  the  same  objective 
truths,  Avith  the  same  external  and  rational  evidence,  which  was 
an  offence  to  the  Jew  and  foolishness  to  the  Greek,  was  to  the 
called  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God.  Why  this  difference  ? 
Not  the  superior  knowledge  or  greater  excellence  of  the  called, 
but  the  inward  divine  influence,  the  K-Xiyo-t?,  of  which  they  were 
the  subjects.  Paul's  instantaneous  conversion  is  not  to  be  referred 
to  any  rational  process  of  argument ;  nor  to  his  moral  suceptibility 
to  the  truth  ;  nor  to  the  visible  manifestation  of  Christ,  for  no 
miracle,  no  outward  light  or  splendour  could  change  the  heart  and 
transform  the  whole  character  in  a  moment.  It  was,  as  the 
Apostle  himself  tells  us  (Gal.  i.  15,  16),  the  inward  revelation  of 
Clmst  to  him  by  the  special  grace  of  God.  It  was  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit,  which  being  inward  and  supernatural,  enabled 
him  to  see  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Psalmist  prayed  that  God  would  open  his  eyes  that  he  might  see 
wondrous  things  out  of  his  law.  The  Apostle  prayed  for  the 
Ephesians  that  God  would  give  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the 
eyes  of  their  souls  might  be  opened,  that  they  might  know  the 
things  freely  given  to  them  of  God.  (Eph.  i.  17,  18.)  Every- 
where in  the  Bible  the  fact  that  any  one  believes  is  referred  not 
to  his  subjective  state,  but  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on  his  heart. 

Proof  from  the  Way  the  Ajjostles  acted. 

2.  As  the  Scriptures  thus  expressly  teach  that  the  ground  of 
true  or  saving  faith  is  the  inward  witness  of  the  Spirit,  the  Apos- 
tles always  acted  on  that  principle.     They  announced  the  truth, 


§  3]  DIFFERENT  KINDS   OF   FAITH.  73 

and  demanded  its  instant  reception,  under  the  pain  of  eternal 
death.  Our  Lord  did  the  same.  "  He  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already,  because  he  hath  not  beUeved  in  the  name  of  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God."  (John  iii.  18.)  Immediate  faith 
was  demanded.  Being  demanded  by  Christ,  and  at  his  command 
by  the  Apostles,  that  demand  must  be  just  and  reasonable.  It 
could,  however,  be  neither  unless  the  evidence  of  the  truth  at- 
tended it.  That  evidence  could  not  be  the  external  proofs  of  the 
divinity  of  Clu'ist  and  his  Gospel,  for  those  proofs  were  present  to 
the  minds  of  comparatively  few  of  the  hearers  of  the  Gospel ;  nor 
could  it  be  rational  proof  or  philosophical  arguments,  for  still 
fewer  could  appreciate  such  evidence,  and  if  they  could  it  would 
avail  nothing  to  the  production  of  saving  faith.  The  evidence  of 
truth,  to  which  assent  is  demanded  by  God  the  moment  it  is  an- 
nounced, must  be  in  the  truth  itself.  And  if  this  assent  be  obli- 
gatory, and  dissent  or  unbelief  a  sin,  then  the  evidence  must  be  of 
a  nature,  to  which  a  corrupt  state  of  the  soul  renders  a  man  in- 
sensible. "  If  our  gospel  be  hid,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  it  is  hid  to 
them  that  are  lost :  in  whom  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded 
the  minds  of  them  which  beheve  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious 
gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine  unto 

them [But]    God,  who  commanded  the    light    to    shine 

out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  (2 
Cor.  iv.  3-6.)  It  is  here  taught,  (1.)  That  wherever  and  when- 
ever Christ  is  preached,  the  evidence  of  his  divinity  is  presented. 
The  glory  of  God  shines  in  his  face.  (2.)  That  if  any  man  fails 
to  see  it,  it  is  because  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  his 
eyes.  (3.)  That  if  any  do  perceive  it  and  believe,  it  is  because 
of  an  inward  illumination  produced  by  Him  Avho  first  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness. 

Proof  from  the  Practice  in  the  Church. 

3.  As  Christ  and  the  Apostles  acted  on  this  principle,  so  have 
all  faitliful  ministers  and  missionaries  from  that  day  to  this. 
They  do  not  expect  to  convince  and  convert  men  by  historical 
evidence  or  by  philosophical  arguments.  They  depend  on  the 
demonstration  of  the  Spirit. 

Proof  from  Analogy. 

4.  This  doctrine,  that  the  true  and  immediate  gTound  of  faith 
in  the  things  of  the  Spirit  is  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  produ- 


T4  PART   III.     Ch.   XVI.  — faith. 

cing  spiritual  discernment,  is  sustained  by  analogy.  If  a  man 
cannot  see  the  splendour  of  the  sun,  it  is  because  he  is  blind.  If 
he  cannot  perceive  the  beauties  of  nature  and  of  art,  it  is  because 
he  has  no  taste.  If  he  cannot  apprehend  "  the  concord  of  sweet 
sounds,"  it  is  because  he  has  not  a  musical  ear.  If  he  cannot  see 
the  beauty  of  virtue,  or  the  divine  authority  of  the  moral  law,  it 
is  because  his  moral  sense  is  blunted.  If  he  cannot  see  the  glory 
of  God  in  his  works  and  in  his  "Word,  it  is  because  his  religious 
nature  is  perverted.  And  in  like  manner,  if  he  cannot  see  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  because  the  god  of 
this  world  has  blinded  his  eyes. 

No  one  excuses  the  man  who  can  see  no  excellence  in  virtue, 
and  who  repudiates  the  authority  of  the  moral  law.  The  Bible 
and  the  instinctive  judgment  of  men,  condemn  the  atheist.  In  like 
manner  the  Scriptures  pronounce  accursed  all  who  do  not  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  This  is  the 
denial  of  supreme  excellence  ;  the  rejection  of  the  clearest  mani- 
festation of  God  ever  made  to  man.  The  solemn  judgment  of 
God  is,  "  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be 
anathema  maranatha."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  22.)  In  this  judgment  the 
whole  intelligent  universe  will  ultimately  acquiesce. 

Faith  in  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  is  founded  on  the  testimony 
of  God.  By  testimony,  as  before  stated,  is  meant  attestation, 
anything  which  pledges  the  authority  of  the  attester  in  support 
of  the  truth  to  be  established.  As  this  testimony  is  of  different 
kinds,  so  the  faith  which  it  produces,  is  also  different.  So  far  as 
the  testimony  is  merely  external,  the  faith  it  produces  is  simply 
historical  or  speculative.  So  far  as  the  testimony  is  moral,  con- 
sisting in  the  power  which  the  Spirit  gives  to  the  truth  over  the 
natural  conscience,  the  faith  is  temporary,  depending  on  the  state 
of  mind  which  is  its  proximate  cause.  Besides  these,  there  is  the 
inward  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  of  such  a  nature  and  of 
such  power  as  to  produce  a  perfect  revolution  in  the  soul,  com- 
pared in  Scripture  to  that  effected  by  opening  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  to  the  reality,  the  wonders,  and  glories  of  creation.  There 
is,  therefore,  all  the  difference  between  a  faith  resting  on  this 
inward  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  and  mere  speculative  faith,  that 
there  is  between  the  conviction  a  blind  man  has  of  the  beauties  of 
nature,  before  and  after  the  opening  of  his  eyes.  As  this  testi- 
mony is  informing,  enabling  the  soul  to  see  tlie  truth  and  excel- 
lence of  the  "  things  of  the  Spirit,"  so  far  as  the  consciousness 
of  the  believer  is  concerned,  his  faith  is  a  form  of  knowledge. 
He  sees  to  be  true,  what  the  Spirit  reveals  and  authenticates. 


§4.]  FAITH   AND   KNOWLEDGE.  75 

§  4.  Faith  and  Knowledge. 
The  relation  of  faith  to  knowledge  is  a  wide  field.  The  dis- 
cussions on  the  subject  have  been  varied  and  endless.  There  is 
little  probability  that  the  points  at  issue  will  ever  be  settled  to 
the  satisfaction  of  all  parties.  The  ground  of  faith  is  authority. 
The  ground  of  knowledge  is  sense  or  reason.  We  are  concerned 
here  only  with  Christian  faith,  {.  e.,  the  faith  which  receives  the 
Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God  and  all  they  teach  as  true  on  his 
authority. 

Is  a  Supernatural  Revelation  needed  ? 

The  first  question  is,  Whether  there  is  any  need  of  a  supernat- 
ural revelation,  whether  human  reason  be  not  competent  to 
discover  and  to  authenticate  all  needful  truth.  This  question 
has  already  been  considered  under  the  head  of  Rationalism, 
where  it  was  shown,  (1.)  That  every  man's  consciousness  tells 
him  that  there  a,re  questions  co/icerning  God  and  his  own  origin 
and  destiny,  which  his  reason  cannot  answer.  (2.)  That  he 
knows  a  priori^  that  the  reason  of  no  other  man  can  satisfactorily 
answer  them.  (3.)  That  he  knows  from  expei'ience  that  they 
never  have  been  answered  by  the  wisdom  of  men,  and  (4.)  That 
the  Scriptures  declare  that  the  world  by  wisdom  knows  not  God  ; 
that  the  wisdom  of  the  world  is  foolishness  in  his  estimation,  and 
that  God  has  therefore  himself  made  known  truths  undiscovera- 
ble  by  reason,  for  the  salvation  of  man. 

Must  the  Truths  of  Revelation  he  Demonstrable  hy  Reason  ? 

A  second  question  is.  Whether  truths,  supernaturally  revealed, 
must  be  able  to  authenticate  themselves  at  the  bar  of  reason  be- 
fore they  can  be  rationally  received  ;  so  that  they  are  received, 
not  on  the  ground  of  authority,  but  of  rational  proof.  This  also 
has  been  previously  discussed.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  as- 
sumption that  God  can  reveal  nothing  which  human  reason  can- 
not, when  known,  demonstrate  to  be  true,  assumes  that  human 
reason  is  the  measure  of  all  truth  ;  that  there  is  no  intelligence 
in  the  universe  higher  than  that  of  man  ;  and  that  God  cannot 
have  purposes  and  plans,  the  grounds  or  reasons  of  which  we  are 
not  competent  to  discover  and  appreciate.  It  emancijaates  the 
soul  from  the  authority  of  God,  refusing  to  believe  anything  ex- 
cept on  the  authority  of  reason.  Why  may  we  not  believe  on  -the 
testimony  of  God  that  there  is  a  spiritual  world,  as  well  as  be- 


76  PART  m.    Ch.  xvl— faith. 

lieve  that  there  is  such  a  nation  as  the  Chinese  on  the  testimony 
of  men  ?  No  man  acts  on  the  principle  of  beUeving  only  what 
he  can  understand  and  prove,  in  any  other  department.  There 
are  multitudes  of  truths  which  every  sane  man  receives  on  trust, 
without  being  able  either  to  prove  or  comprehend  them.  If  we 
can  believe  only  what  we  can  prove  at  the  bar  of  reason  to  be 
true,  then  the  kingdom  of  heaven  would  be  shut  against  all  but 
the  wise.  There  could  be  no  Christian  who  was  not  also  a  plii- 
losopher.  In  point  of  fact  no  man  acts  on  this  principle.  It  is 
assumed  in  the  pride  of  reason,  or  as  an  apology  for  rejecting 
unpalatable  truths,  but  men  believe  in  God,  in  sin,  in  freedom 
of  the  will,  in  responsibility,  without  the  ability  of  comprehend- 
ing or  reconciling  these  truths  with  each  other  or  with  other 
facts  of  consciousness  or  experience. 

May  not  Revealed  Truths  he  PhilosopJiically  vindicated? 

A  third  question  is.  Whether,  admitting  a  supernatural  revela- 
tion, and  moreover  admitting  the  obligation  to  receive  on  the 
authority  of  God  the  doctrines  which  revelation  makes  known, 
the  revealed  doctrines  may  not  be  philosophically  vindicated,  so 
as  to  commend  them  to  the  acfjeptance  of  those  who  deny  rev- 
elation. May  not  the  Scriptural  doctrines  concerning  God,  crea- 
tion, providence,  the  trinity,  the  incarnation,  sin,  redemption, 
and  the  "future  state,  be  so  stated  and  sustained  philosophically, 
as  to  constrain  acquiescence  in  them  as  truths  of  the  reason. 
This  was  the  ground  taken  in  the  early  Church  by  the  theolo- 
gians of  the  Alexandrian  School,  who  undertook  to  elevate  the 
TTto-Tis  of  the  people  into  a  yiocrts  for  the  philosophers.  Thus  the 
sacred  writers  were  made  Platonists,  and  Christianity  was  trans- 
muted into  Platonism.  A  large  part  of  the  mental  activity  of  the 
School-men,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  was  expended  in  the  same 
way.  They  received  the  Bible  as  a  supernatural  revelation  from 
God.  They  received  the  Church  interpretation  of  its  teachings. 
They  admitted  their  obligation  to  believe  its  doctrines  on  the 
authority  of  God  and  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless  they  held 
that  all  these  doctrines  could  be  philosophically  proved.  In  later 
times  Wolf  undertook  to  demonstrate  all  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity on  the  principles  of  the  Leibnitzian  philosophy.  In  our 
own  day  this  principle  and  these  attempts  have  been  carried  fur- 
ther than  ever.  Systems  of  theology,  constructed  on  the  philoso- 
phy of  Hegel,  of  Schelling,  and  of  Schleiermacher,  have  almost 
superseded  the  old  Biblical  systems.     If  any  man  of  ordinary 


§4.]  FAITH   AND   KNOWLEDGE.  77 

culture  and  intelligence  should  take  up  a  volume  of  what  is 
called  "  Speculative  Theology,"  (that  is,  theology  presented  in 
the  forms  of  the  speculative  pliilosophy,)  he  would  not  understand 
a  page  and  would  hardly  understand  a  sentence.  He  could  not 
tell  whether  the  theology  which  it  proposed  to  present  was 
Christianity  or  Buddhism.  Or,  at  best,  he  Avould  find  a  few 
drops  of  Biblical  truth  so  diluted  by  floods  of  human  speculation 
that  the  most  delicate  of  chemical  tests  would  fail  to  detect  the 
divine  element. 

Attempts  to  do  this  Futile. 

All  such  attempts  are  futile.  The  empirical  proof  of  this  is, 
that  no  such  attempt  has  ever  succeeded.  The  experiment  has 
been  made  hundreds  of  times,  and  always  with  the  same  result. 
Where  are  now  the  philosophical  expositions  and  vindications  of 
Scripture  doctrines  by  the  Platonizing  fathers  ;  by  the  School- 
men ;  by  the  Cartesians ;  by  the  Leibnitzians  ?  What  power 
over  the  reason,  the  conscience,  or  the  life,  has  any  of  the  specu- 
lative systems  of  our  day  ?  Who,  beyond  the  devotees  of  the 
systems  which  they  represent,  understand  or  adopt  the  theology 
of  Daub,  of  Marheinecke,  of  Lange,  and  others  ?  Strauss,  there- 
fore, is  right  when  he  repudiates  all  these  vain  attempts  to  rec- 
oncile Christianity  with  philosophy,  or  to  give  a  form  to  Chris- 
tian doctrine  which  satisfies  the  philosophical  thinker.^ 

But  apart  from  this  argument  from  experience,  the  assump- 
tion is  preposterous  that  the  feeble  intellect  of  man  can  explain, 
and  from  its  o\vn  resources,  vindicate  and  prove  the  deep  things 
of  God.  An  infant  might  as  well  undertake  to  expovmd  New- 
ton's "  Principia."  If  there  are  mysteries  in  nature,  in  every 
blade  of  grass,  in  the  insect,  in  the  body  and  in  the  soul  of  man, 
there  must  be  mysteries  in  religion.  The  Bible  and  our  con- 
sciousness teach  us  that  God  is  incomprehensible,  and  his  ways 
past  finding  out ;  that  we  cannot  explain  either  his  nature  or  his 
acts  ;  we  know  not  how  he  creates,  upholds,  and  governs  Avithout 
biterfering  with  the  nature  of  his  creatures  ;  how  there  can  be 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  how  in  the  one  person  of  Christ 
there  can  be  two  intelligences  and  two  Avills  ;  how  the  Spirit  in- 
spires, renews,  sanctifies,  or  comforts.  It  belongs  to  the  "  self- 
deifying  "  class  of  philosophers  to  presume  to  know  all  that  God 
knows,  and  to  banish  the  incomprehensible  from  the  religion 
which  he  has  revealed.     "  To  the  school  of  Hegel,"  says  Bret- 

1  See  above,  p.  58. 


78  PART  III.     Ch.   XVI.  — faith. 

Schneider,  "  there  are  mysteries  in  religion  only  for  those  who 
have  not  raised  themselves  to  the  Hegelian  grade  of  knowledge. 
For  the  latter  all  is  clear  ;  all  is  knowledge  ;  and  Christianity 
is  the  solution,  and  therefore  the  revelation  of  all  mysteries."^ 
This  may  be  consistent  in  those  who  hold  that  man  is  God  in  the 
highest  form  of  his  existence,  and  the  philosopher  the  highest 
style  of  man.  Such  an  assertion,  however,  by  whomsoever  it 
may  be  made,  is  the  insanity  of  presumption. 

May  ivhat  is  True  in  Religion  he  False  in  Philosophy  ? 

A  fourth  question  included  in  this  general  subject  is,  Whethel 
there  is  or  may  be  a  real  conflict  between  the  truths  of  reason 
and  those  of  revelation  ?  Whether  that  which  is  true  in  religion 
may  be  false  in  philosophy  ?  To  this  question  different  answers 
have  been  given. 

The  Fathers  on  this  Question. 

First,  while  the  Greek  fathers  were  disposed  to  bring  religion 
and  philosophy  into  harmony,  by  giving  a  philosophical  form  to 
Christian  doctrines,  the  Latins  were  inclined  to  represent  the 
two  as  irreconcilable.  "  What,"  asks  Tertullian,  "  has  Athens 
to  do  with  Jerusalem  ?  The  academy  with  the  Church  ?  What 
have  heretics  to  do  with  Christians  ?  Our  instruction  is  from  the 
porch  of  Solomon,  who  himself  taught  that  the  Lord  was  to  be 

sought  in  the  simplicity  of  the  heart We  need  no  seeking 

for  truth  after  Christ ;  no  research  after  the  Gospel.  When  we 
believe,  we  desire  nothing  beyond  faith,  because  we  believe  that 

there  is  nothing   else  we   should   do To   know  nothing 

beyond  is  to  know  all  things."^  He  went  so  far  as  to  say, 
"  Prorsus  credibile  est,  quia  ineptum  est ;  ....  certum  est, 
quia  impossibile  est."  ^  Without  going  to  this  extreme,  the  the- 
ologians of  the  Latin  Church,  those  of  them  at  least  most  zealous 

1  Systematische  Entwickelimg,  §  29,  4th  edit.  Leipzig,  1841,  p.  163. 

2  De  Prcsscriptionibus  adversus  Ilcereticos,  cap.  7,  8,  14,  Works,  Paris,  1G08  (t.  iii.), 
p.  331:  "  Quid  ergo  AtlKMiis  et  Hierosolymis?  quid  Acadeiui;p  et  Ecclesia;!'  quid  hwreti- 
cis  et  Christianis?  Nostra  institutio  de  porticu  Solomonis  est,  qui  et  ipse  tradiderat: 
Dominum  in  simpiicitate  cordis  esse  quairendum.  Viderint  qui  Stoicum,  et  riatonicum,  et 
Dialetticuin,  Cliristianissimuiu  protulerunt.  Nobis  curiositatc  opus  non  est  post  Christum 
Jesum,  nee  inquisitione  post  Evangelium.    Cum  credimus, -nihil  desideramus  ultra  credere. 

Hoc  enim  prius  credimus,  non  esse  quod  ultra  credere  debeamus Cedat  curiositas 

fidei,  cedat  gloria  saluti.  Certe  aut  non  obstrepant,  aut  quiescant  adversus  regulam. 
Nihil  ultra  scire,  omnia  scire  est." 

8  De  Came  Christi,  cap.  5,  Works  (t.  iii.),  p.  555:  "Natus  est  Dei  filius:  non  pudet, 
quia  pudendum  est.  Et  mortuus  est  Dei  (ilius:  prorsus  credibile  est,  quia  ineptum  est. 
Et  sepultus,  resurrexit:  certum  est,  quia  impossibile  est." 


§4.]  FAITH   AND   KNOWLEDGE.  79 

for  Cliurcli  doctrines,  were  inclined  to  deny  to  reason  even  the 
prerogative  of  a,judieium  coyitradictionis.  They  were  constrained 
to  take  this  ground  because  they  were  called  upon  to  defend  doc- 
trines which  contradicted  not  only  reason  but  the  senses.  When 
it  was  objected  to  the  doctrine  that  the  consecrated  wafer  is  .the 
real  body  of  Christ,  that  our  senses  pronounce  it  to  be  bread, 
and  that  it  is  impossible  that  a  human  body  should  be  in  heaven 
and  in  all  parts  of  the  earth  at  the  same  time,  what  could  they 
say  but  that  the  senses  and  reason  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  the 
sphere  of  faith  ?  That  what  is  false  to  the  reason  and  the  senses 
may  be  true  in  religion  ?     • 

Lutheran  Teaching  on  this  Point. 

The  Lutherans  were  under  the  same  necessity.  Their  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ  involves  the  denial  of  the  primary  truth, 
that  attributes  cannot  be  separated  from  the  substance  of  which 
they  are  the  manifestation.  Their  doctrine  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper  involves  the  assumption  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body, 
which  seems  to  be  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

Luther's  utterances  on  this  subject  are  not  very  consistent. 
When  arguing  against  the  continued  obligation  of  monastic  vows, 
he  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  what  was  contrary  to  reason  was 
contrary  to  God.  ''  Was  nun  der  Vernunft  entgegen  ist,  ist  gewiss 
dass  es  Gott  vielmehr  entgegen  ist.  Denn  wie  sollte  es  nicht  wider 
die  gottliche  Wahrheit  seyn,  das  wider  Vernunft  und  menschliche 
Wahrheit  ist."  ^  But  in  the  sacramentarian  controversy  he  will  not 
allow  reason  to  be  heard.  "  In  the  things  of  God,"  he  says,  reason 
or  nature  is  stock-star-and-stone  blind.  "  It  is,  indeed,"  he  adds, 
"  audacious  enough  to  plunge  in  and  stumble  as  a  blind  horse  ; 
but  all  that  it  explains  or  concludes  is  as  certainly  false  and 
wrong  as  that  God  lives."  ^  In  another  place  he  says  that  reason, 
when  she  attempts  to  speculate  about  divine  things,  becomes  a 
fool ;  which,  indeed,  is  very  much  what  Paul  says.  (Rom.  i.  22  ; 
1  Cor.  i.  18-31.) 

The  Lutheran  theologians  made  a  distinction  between  reason 
in  the  abstract,  or  reason  as  it  was  in  man  before  the  fall,  and 
reason  as  it  now  is.  They  admit  that  no  truth  of  revelation  can 
contradict  reason  as  such  ;  but  it  may  contradict  the  reason  of 
men  all  of  whose  faculties  are  clouded  and  deteriorated  by  sin. 
By  this  was  not  meant  simply  that  the  unreneAved  man  is  opposed 
to  the  truth  of  God  ;  that  "the  things  of  the  Spirit"  are  fool 

1  Works,  edit.  Walch,  vol.  xix.  p.  1940.  2  md.  vol.  xii.  pp.  309,  40'). 


80  PART  ni.     Ch.   X\a  -  FAITH. 

ishness  to  liim  ;  that  it  seems  to  him  absurd  that  God  should  be 
found  in  fasliion  as  a  man ;  that  He  should  demand  a  satisfaction 
for  sin  ;  or  save  one  man  and  not  another,  according  to  his  own 
good  pleasure.  This  the  Bible  clearly  teaches  and  all  Christians 
believe.  In  all  this  there  is  no  contradiction  between  reason  and 
religion.  The  being  of  God  is  foolishness  to  the  atheist ;  and  per- 
sonal immortality  is  foolishness  to  the  pantheist.  Yet  who  would 
admit  that  these  doctrines  are  contrary  to  reason  ?  The  Lutheran 
theologians  intended  to  teach,  not  only  that  the  mysteries  of  the 
Bible  are  above  reason,  that  they  can  neither  be  understood  nor 
demonstrated  ;  and  not  only  that  "  the  things  of  the  Spirit  "  are 
foolishness  to  the  natural  man,  but  that  they  are  really  in  conflict 
with  the  human  understanding  ;  that  by  a  correct  process  of  rea- 
soning they  can  be  demonstrated  to  be  false  ;  so  that  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  terms  what  is  true  in  religion  is  false  in  philosophy. 
"  The  Sorbonne,"  says  Luther,  "has  pronounced  a  most  abom- 
inable decision  in  saying  that  what  is  true  in  religion  is  also  true 
in  philosophy  ;  and  moreover  condemning  as  heretics  all  who  as- 
sert the  contrary.  By  this  horrible  doctrine  it  has  given  it  to  be 
clearly  vmderstood  that  the  doctrines  of  faith  are  to  be  subjected 
to  the  yoke  of  human  reason."  ^ 

Sir  William  Hamilton. 

Secondly,  the  ground  taken  by  Sir  William  Hamilton  on  this 
subject  is  not  precisely  the  same  with  that  taken  by  the  Luther- 
ans. They  agree,  indeed,  in  this,  that  we  are  bound  to  believe 
what  (at  the  bar  of  reason)  we  can  prove  to  be  false,  but  they 
differ  entirely  as  to  the  cause  and  nature  of  this  conflict  between 
reason  and  faith.  According  to  the  Lutherans,  it  arises  from  the 
corruption  and  deterioration  of  our  nature  by  the  fall.  It  is  re- 
moved in  part  in  this  world  by  regeneration,  and  entirely  here- 
after by  the  perfection  of  our  sanctification.  According  to  Ham- 
ilton, this  conflict  arises  from  the  necessary  limitation  of  human 
thought.  God  has  so  made  us  that  reason,  acting  according  to  its 
own  laws,  of  necessity  arrives  at  conclusions  directly  opposed  to 
the  doctrines  of  religion  both  natural  and  revealed.  We  can- 
prove  demonstrably  that  the  Absolute  being  cannot  know,  cannot 
be  a  cause,  cannot  be  conscious.  It  may  be  proved  with  equal 
clearness  that  the  Infinite  cannot  be  a  person,  or  possess  moral 
attributes.  Here,  then,  what  is  true  in  religion,  what  we  are 
bound  to  believe,  and  what  in  point  of  fact  all  men,  in  virtue  of 

1  Works,  edit.  Walch,  vol.  x.  p.  1399. 


§4.]  FAITH   AND   KNOWLEDGE.  81 

the  constitution  of  tlieir  nature  do  believe,  can  be  proved  to  be 
false.  There  is  thus  an  irreconcilable  conflict  between  our  intel- 
lectual and  moral  nature.  But  as,  according  to  the  idealist,  reason 
forces  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  external  world  does  not  exist, 
while,  nevertheless,  it  is  safe  and  proper  to  act  on  the  assumption 
that  it  is,  and  is  what  it  appears  to  be  ;  so,  according  to  Hamil- 
ton, it  is  not  only  safe,  but  obligatory  on  us  to  act  on  the  assump- 
tion that  God  is  a  person,  although  infinite,  while  our  reason 
demonstrates  that  an  infinite  person  is  a  contradiction.  The  con- 
flict between  reason  and  faith  is  avowed,  while  the  obligation  of 
faith  on  the  testimony  of  our  moral  and  religious  nature  and  of 
the  Word  of  God  is  affirmed.  This  point  has  been  already  dis- 
cussed. 

The  View  of  Speculative  Philosophers. 

Thirdly,  we  note  the  view  taken  by  the  speculative  philoso- 
phers. They,  too,  maintain  that  reason  demonstrates  the  doc- 
trmes  of  revelation  and  even  of  natural  religion  to  be  false.  But 
they  do  not  recognize  their  obligation  to  receive  them  as  objects 
of  faith.  Being  contrary  to  reason,  those  doctrines  are  false,  and 
being  false,  they  are,  by  enlightened  men,  to  be  rejected.  If  any 
cling  to  them  as  a  matter  of  feeling,  they  are  to  be  allowed  to  do 
so,  but  they  must  renounce  all  claim  to  philosophic  insight. 

May  the  Objects  of  Faith  he  above,  and  yet  not  against  Reason? 
A  fifth  question  is,  Whether  the  objects  of  faith  may  be  above, 
and  yet  not  contrary  to  reason  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is 
to  be  in  the  affirmative,  for  the  distmction  implied  is  sound  and 
almost  universally  admitted.  What  is  above  reason  is  simply 
incomprehensible.  What  is  against  reason  is  impossible.  It  is 
contrary  to  reason  that  contradictions  should  be  true ;  that  a 
part  should  be  greater  than  the  whole  ;  that  a  thing  should  be 
and  not  be  at  the  same  time ;  that  right  should  be  wrong  and 
wrong  right.  It  is  incomprehensible  how  matter  attracts  matter ; 
how  the  mind  acts  on  the  body,  and  the  body  on  the  mind.  The 
distinction  between  the  incomprehensible  and  the  impossible,  is 
therefore  plain  and  admitted.  And  the  distinction  between  what 
is  above  reason,  and  what  is  against  reason,  is  equally  obvious 
and  just.  The  great  body  of  Christian  theologians  have  ever 
taken  the  ground  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  not  contrary 
to  reason,  although  above  it.  That  is,  they  are  matters  of  faith 
to  be  received  on  the  authority  of  God,  and  not  because  they  can 
be  either  understood  or  proved.     As  it  is  incomprehensible  how  a 


82  PART  m.   ch.  x\a  — faith. 

soul  and  body  can  be  united  in  one  conscious  life  ;  so  it  is  incom- 
prehensible how  a  divine  and  human  nature  can  be  united  in  one. 
person  in  Christ.  Neither  is  impossible,  and  therefore  neither  is 
contrary  to  reason.  We  know  the  one  fact  from  consciousness  ; 
we  believe  the  other  on  the  testimony  of  God.  It  is  impossible, 
and  therefore  contrary  to  reason,  that  three  should  be  one.  But 
it  is  not  impossible  that  the  same  numerical  essence  should  sub- 
sist in  three  distinct  persons.  Realists  tell  us  that  humanity,  as  one 
numerical  essence,  subsists  in  all  the  millions  of  human  individuals. 
Thomas  Aquinas  takes  the  true  ground  when  he  says  :  "  Ea  quae 
sunt  supra  naturam,  sola  fide  tenemus.  Quod  autem  credimus, 
auctoritati  debemus.  Unde  in  omnibus  asserendis  sequi  debemus 
naturam  rerum,  praiter  ea,  qute  auctoritate  divina  traduntur,  qu83 
sunt  supra  naturam."  ^  "  Quns  igitur  fidei  sunt,  non  sunt  tentanda 
probare  nisi  per  auctoritates  his,  qui  auctoritates  suscipiunt.  Apud 
alios  vero  sufficit  defendere  non  esse  impossibile  quod  praidi(jat 
fides."  ^  "  Quidquid  in  aliis  scientiis  invenitur  veritati  hujus  scien- 
tise  [sacrce  doctrinae]  repugnans,  totum  condemnatur  ut  falsum."^ 

The  Objects  of  Faith  are  consistent  with  Reason. 

While,  therefore,  the  objects  of  faith  as  revealed  in  the  Bible, 
are  not  truths  of  the  reason,  ^'.  e.,  which  the  human  reason  can 
discover,  or  comprehend,  or  demonstrate,  they  are,  nevertheless, 
perfectly  consistent  with  reason.  They  involve  no  contradictions 
or  absurdities  ;  nothing  impossible,  nothing  inconsistent  with  the 
intuitions  either  of  the  intellect  or  of  the  conscience  ;  nothing  in- 
consistent with  any  well  established  truth,  whether  of  the  exter- 
nal world  or  of  the  world  of  mind.  On  the  contrary,  the  contents 
of  the  Bible,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  things  within  the  legitimate 
domain  of  human  knowledge,  are  found  to  be  consistent,  and  must 
be  consistent,  with  all  we  certainly  know  from  other  sources  than 
a  divine  revelation.  All  that  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the 
external  world  accords  Avith  the  facts  of  experience.  They  do 
not  teach  that  the  earth  is  a  plain  ;  that  it  is  stationary  in  space  ; 
that  the  sun  revolves  around  it.  On  the  other  hand,  they  do 
teach  that  God  made  all  plants  and  animals,  each  after  its  own- 
kind  ;  and,  accordingly,  all  experience  shows  that  species  are  im- 
mutable. All  the  anthropological  doctrines  of  the  Bible  agree 
with  what  we  laiow  of  man  from  consciousness  and  observation. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  God  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  which 
dwell  on  the  face  of  the  eartli.     We  accordingly  find  that  all  the 

1  Summa,  i.  quaest.  xcix.  art.  1,  edit.  Cologne,  1G40,  p.  185,  a. 

3  Ibid,  quxst.  xxxii.  art.  1,  p.  64,  a.  »  Ibid,  quaest,  i.  art.  6,  p.  2,  b. 


§4.]  FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE.  83 

varieties  of  our  race  have  the  same  anatomical  structure ;  the 
same  physical  nature  ;  the  same  rational  and  moral  faculties. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  man  is  a  free,  accountable  agent ;  that 
all  men  are  sinners ;  that  all  need  redemption,  and  that  no  man 
can  redeem  himself  or  find  a  ransom  for  his  brother.  With  these 
teachings  the  consciousness  of  all  men  agrees.  All  that  the  Scrip- 
tm-es  reveal  concerning  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God,  corre- 
sponds with  our  religious  nature,  satisfying,  elevating,  and  sancti- 
fying all  our  powers  and  meeting  all  our  necessities.  If  the 
contents  of  the  Bible  did  not  correspond  with  the  truths  which 
God  has  revealed  in  his  external  works  and  the  constitution  of 
our  nature,  it  could  not  be  received  as  coming  from  Him,  for  God 
camiot  contradict  liimself.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more 
derogatory  to  the  Bible  than  the  assertion  that  its  doctrines  are 
contrary  to  reason. 

Faith  in  the  Irrational  impossible. 

The  assumption  that  reason  and  faith  are  incompatible ;  that 
we  must  become  irrational  in  order  to  become  believers  is,  how- 
ever it  may  be  intended,  the  language  of  infidehty ;  for  faith  in 
the  irrational  is  of  necessity  itseK  irrational.  It  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  to  be  true  which  the  mind  sees  to  be  false.  This 
would  be  to  believe  and  disbelieve  the  same  thing  at  the  same 
time.  If,  therefore,  as  modern  philosoj)liers  assert,  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  an  infinite  being  can  be  a  person,  then  faith  in  the  per- 
sonality of  God  is  impossible.  Then  tliere  can  be  no  religion,  no 
sin,  no  accountability,  no  immortality.  Faith  is  not  a  blind,  irra- 
tional conviction.  In  order  to  believe,  we  must  know  what  we 
believe,  and  the  grounds  on  which  our  faith  rests.  And,  there- 
fore, the  refuge  which  some  would  take  in  faith,  from  the  univer- 
sal scepticism  to  which  they  say  reason  necessarily  leads,  is  inse- 
cure and  worthless. 

While  admitting  that  the  truths  of  revelation  are  to  be  received 
upon  the  authority  of  God ;  that  human  reason  can  neither  com- 
prehend nor  prove  them ;  that  a  man  must  be  converted  and 
become  as  a  httle  child  before  he  can  truly  receive  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  ;  and  admitting,  moreover,  that  these  doctrines  are 
irreconcilable  with  every  system  of  philosophy,  ever  framed  by 
those  who  refuse  to  be  taught  of  God,  or  who  were  ignorant  of 
his  Word,  yet  it  is  ever  to  be  maintained  that  those  doctrines  are 
unassailable  ;  that  no  created  intellect  can  prove  them  to  be  im- 
possible or  irrational.     Paul,  while  spurning  the  wisdom  of  the 


84  PART  in.    Cn.  XVI.  — FAITH. 

■world,  still  claimed  that  lie  taught  the  highest  wisdom,  even  the 
wisdom  of  God.  (1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7.)  And  who  will  venture  to  say 
that  the  wisdom  of  God  is  irrational  ? 

Knowledge  essential  to  Faith. 

A  sixth  question,  included  under  the  head  of  the  relation  of 
faith  to  knowledge  is,  Whether  knowledge  is  essential  to  faith  ? 
That  is,  Avhether  a  truth  must  be  known  in  order  to  be  believed  ? 
This  Protestants  affirm  and  Romanists  deny. 

Protestants  of  course  admit  that  mysteries,  or  truths  which  we 
are  unable  to  comprehend,  may  be,  and  are,  proper  objects  of 
faith.  They  repudiate  the  rationalistic  doctrine  that  we  can  be- 
lieve only  what  we  understand  and  what  we  can  prove,  or,  at 
least,  elucidate  so  that  it  appears  to  be  true  in  its  own  light. 
What  Protestants  maintain  is  that  knowledge,  i.e.,  the  cognition 
of  the  import  of  the  proposition  to  be  believed,  is  essential  to 
faith ;  and,  consequently,  that  faith  is  limited  by  knowledge.  We 
can  believe  only  what  we  know,  i.  e.,  what  we  intelligently  ap- 
prehend. If  a  proposition  be  announced  to  us  in  an  unknown 
lanffua^e,  we  can  affirm  nothing  about  it.  We  can  neither  be- 
lieve  nor  disbelieve  it.  Should  the  man  who  makes  the  declara- 
tion, assert  that  it  is  true,  if  we  have  confidence  in  his  competency 
and  integrity,  we  may  believe  that  he  is  right,  but  the  proposi- 
tion itself  is  no  part  of  our  faith.  The  Apostle  recognizes  this 
obvious  truth  when  he  says,  "  Except  ye  utter  by  the  tongue 
words   easy  to  be    understood  (^eva-q^iov  Aoyoi'),   how  shall  it  be 

known  what  is  spoken  ?  for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air 

If  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that 
speaketh  a  barbarian,  and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a  barbarian 

unto  me When  thou  shalt  bless  with  the  Spirit,  how  shall 

he  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned,  say  Amen  at  thy 
giving  of  thanks  ?  seeing  he  understandeth  not  what  thou  say- 
est?"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  9-16.)  To  say  Amen,  is  to  assent  to,  to 
make  one's  own.  According  to  the  Apostle,  therefore,  knowl- 
edge, or  the  intelligent  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  what  is 
proposed,  is  essential  to  faith.  If  the  proposition  "  God  is  a 
Spirit,"  be  announced  to  the  unlearned  in  Hebrew  or  Greek,  it  is 
impossible  that  they  should  assent  to  its  truth.  If  they  under- 
stand the  language  ;  if  they  know  what  the  word  "  God  "  means, 
and  -ttdiat  the  word  "  Spirit "  means,  then  they  may  receive  or 
reject  the  truth  which  that  proposition  affirms.  The  declaration 
"  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,"  admits  of  different  interpretations. 


§4.]  FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE.  SF 

Some  say  the  term  Son  is  an  official  title,  and  therefore  the  piop- 
osition  "  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,"  means  that  Jesus  is  a  ruler. 
Others  say  it  is  a  term  of  affection,  then  the  proposition  means 
that  Jesus  was  the  special  object  of  the  love  of  God.  Others  say 
that  it  means  that  Jesus  is  of  the  same  nature  with  God  ;  that  He 
is  a  divine  person.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit  in  de- 
claring Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  then  those  who  do  not  attach 
that  sense  to  the  words,  do  not  believe  the  truth  intended  to  be 
taught.  When  it  is  said  God  set  forth  Christ  to  be  a  propitiation 
for  our  sins,  if  we  do  not  understand  what  the  word  propitiation 
means,  the  proposition  to  us  means  nothing,  and  nothing  cannot 
be  an  object  of  faith. 

Knowledge  the  Measure  of  Faith. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  or  rather  is  included  in  it, 
that  knowledge  being  essential  to  faith,  it  must  be  the  measure 
of  it.  What  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of  knowledge,  lies  beyond' 
the  sphere  of  faith.  Of  the  unseen  and  eternal  we  can  believe 
only  what  God  has  revealed ;  and  of  what  God  has  revealed,  we 
can  believe  only  what  we  know.  It  has  been  said  that  he  who 
beheves  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  may  properly  be  said 
to  believe  all  it  teaches,  although  much  of  its  instructions  may  be 
to  him  unknown.  But  this  is  not  a  correct  representation.  The 
man  who  believes  the  Bible,  is  prepared  to  believe  on  its  author- 
ity whatever  it  declares  to  be  true.  But  he  cannot  properly  be 
said  to  believe  any  more  of  its  contents  than  he  knows.  If  asked 
if  he  believed  that  men  bitten  by  poisonous  serpents  were  ever 
healed  by  merely  looking  at  a  brazen  serpent,  he  might,  if  igno- 
rant of  the  Pentateuch,  honestly  answer.  No.  But  should  he 
come  to  read  and  understand  the  record  of  the  healing  of  the 
dying  Israelites,  as  found  in  the  Bible,  he  would  rationally  and 
sincerely,  answer.  Yes.  This  disposition  to  believe  whatever  the 
Bible  teaches,  as  soon  as  we  know  what  is  taught,  may  be  called 
an  implicit  faith,  but  it  is  no  real  faith.  It  has  none  of  its 
characteristics  and  none  of  its  power. 

Proof  that  Knowledge  is  Essential  to  Faith. 

That  knowledge,  in  the  sense  above  stated,  is  essential  to  faith 
is  obvious,  — 

1.  From  the  very  nature  of  faith.  It  includes  the  conviction 
of  the  truth  of  its  object.  It  is  an  affirmation  of  the  mind  that 
a  thing  is  true  or  trustworthy,  but  the  mind  can  affirm  noth- 
ing of  that  of  which  it  knows  nothing. 


86  PART  m.     Ch.XVL— FAITH. 

2.  The  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  without  knowledge  there 
can  be  no  faith.  This,  as  just  stated,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul.  He  condemned  the  speaking  in  an  unknown  tongue  in 
a  promiscuous  assembly,  because  the  hearers  could  not  understand 
what  was  said ;  and  if  they  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  the 
words  uttered,  they  could  neither  assent  to  them,  nor  be  profited 
by  them.  In  another  place  (Rom.  x.  14)  he  asks,  "How  shall 
they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  "  "  Faith," 
he  says,  "  cometh  by  hearing."  The  command  of  Christ  was  to 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature ;  to  teach  all  nations.  Those 
who  received  the  instructions  thus  given,  should,  He  assured  his 
disciples,  be  saved ;  those  who  rejected  them,  should  be  damned. 
This  takes  for  granted  that  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel, 
there  can  be  no  faith.  On  this  principle  the  Apostles  acted 
everywhere.  They  went  abroad  preaching  Christ,  proving  from 
the  Scriptures  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the 
world.  The  communication  of  knowledge  always  preceded  the 
demand  for  faith. 

3.  Such  is  the  intimate  connection  between  faith  and  knowl- 
edge, that  in  the  Scriptures  the  one  term  is  often  used  for  the 
other.  To  know  Christ,  is  to  believe  upon  Him.  To  know  the 
truth,  is  intelligently  and  believingly  to  apprehend  and  appropri- 
ate it.  Conversion  is  effected  by  knowledge.  Paul  says  he  was 
made  a  believer  by  the  revelation  of  Christ  vdthin  him.  The 
Spirit  is  said  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  understanding.  Men  are 
said  to  be  renewed  so  as  to  know.  We  are  translated  from  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  light.  Believers  are 
children  of  the  hght.  Men  are  said  to  perish  for  the  lack  of 
knowledge.  Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  the  Bible  than  the 
importance  which  it  attaches  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  "We 
are  said  to  be  begotten  by  the  truth  ;  to  be  sanctified  by  the 
truth ;  and  the  whole  duty  of  ministers  and  teachers  is  said  to  be 
to  hold  forth  the  word  of  life.  It  is  because  Protestants  beKeve 
that  knowledge  is  essential  to  faith,  that  they  insist  so  strenu- 
ously on  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  instruction  of 

the  people. 

Romish  Doctrine  on  this  Subject. 

Romanists  make  a  distinction  between  exphcit  and  implicit 
faith.  By  the  former  is  meant,  faith  in  a  known  truth  ;  by  the 
latter  faith  in  truths  not  known.  They  teach  that  only  a  few 
primary  truths  of  religion  need  be  known,  and  that  faith  without 
knowledge,  as  to  all  other  truths,  is  genuine  and  suflBcicnt.     On 


§4.]  FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE.  87 

this  subject  Thomas  Aquinas  says,  "  Quantum  ad  prima  credibi- 
lia,  qua?  sunt  articuli  fidei,  tenetur  homo  explicite  credere.  Quan- 
tum autem  ad  aha  credibiHa  non  tenetur  homo  exphcite  credere, 
sed  sohim  implicite,  vel  in  prgeparatione  animi,  in  quantum  para- 
tus  est  credere  quidquid  divina  Scriptura  continet."  ^  Imphcit 
faith  is  defined  as,  "Assensus,  qui  omnia,  quamvis  ignota,  qxisQ 
ab  ecclesia  probantur,  amplectitur."  ^  Bellarmin^  says,  "  In  eo 
qui  credit,  duo  sunt,  apprehensio  et  judicium,  sive  asfeensus :  sed 
apprehensio  non  est  fides,  sed  aliud  fidem  prfecedens.  Possunt 
enim  infideles  apprehendere  mysteria  fidei.  Prseterea,  apprehen- 
sio non  dicitur  proprie  notitia Mysteria  fidei,  qufe  ratio- 

nem  superant,  credimus,  non  intelligimus,  ac  per  hoc  fides  distin- 
guitur  contra  scientiam,  et  melius  per  ignorantiam,  quam  per 
notitiam  definitur."  The  faith  required  of  the  people  is  simply, 
"  A  general  intention  to  believe  whatever  the  Church  believes."  4 
The  Church  teaches  that  there  are  seven  sacraments.  A  man 
who  has  no  idea  what  the  word  sacrament  means,  or  what  rites 
are  regarded  by  the  Church  as  having  a  sacramental  character,  is 
held  to  believe  that  orders,  penance,  matrimony,  :*nd  extreme  unc- 
tion, are  sacraments.  So,  of  all  other  doctrines  of  the  Church. 
True  faith  is  said  to  be  consistent  with  absolute  ignorance.  Ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  a  man  may  be  a  true  Christian,  if  he 
submits  to  the  Church,  although  in  his  internal  convictions  and 
modes  of  thought,  he  be  a  pantheist  or  pagan. 

It  is  to  this  grave  error  as  to  the  nature  of  faith,  that  much 
in  the  character  and  practice  of  the  Romish  Church  is  to  be 
referred, — 

1.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  Scriptures  are  withheld  from  the 
people.  If  knowledge  is  not  necessary  to  faith,  there  is  no  need 
that  the  people  should  know  what  the  Bible  teaches. 

2.  For  the  same  reason  the  services  of  public  worship  are  con- 
ducted in  an  unknown  language. 

3.  Hence,  too,  the  symboUsm  which  characterizes  their  wor- 
ship. The  end  to  be  accomplished  is  a  blind  reverence  and  awe. 
For  this  end  there  is  no  need  that  these  symbols  should  be  under- 
stood.    It  is  enough  that  they  affect  the  imagination. 

4.  To  the  same  principle  is  to  be  referred  the  practice  of 
reserve  in  preaching.     The  truth  may  be  kept  back  or  concealed. 

i  Summa,  ii.  ii.  quaast.  ii.  art.  5,  edit.  Cologne,  1G40,  p.  7,  a,  of  third  set. 
2  Tlutterus  Red'ivivus,  §  108,  6th  edit.  Leipzig,  1815,  p.  271. 

8  /)e  Justijicatione,  lib.  i.  cap.  7,  Dlsputadones,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  714,  a,  c. 
*  Strauss,  Dogmatik^  Die  ChristUclie  (^' ivltnslehre   Tiibingeii  and  Stuttgart,  1840,  vol 
i.  p.  284 


88  PART  m.   Ch.  XVI.  — faith. 

The  cross  is  held  up  before  the  people,  but  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  for  sin  made  thereon  should  be 
taught.  It  is  enough  if  the  people  are  impressed ;  it  matters  not 
whether  they  believe  that  the  sign,  or  the  material,  or  the  doc- 
trine symbolized,  secures  salvation.  Nay,  the  darker  the  mind, 
the  more  vague  and  mysterious  the  feeling  excited,  and  the  more 
blind  the  submission  rendered,  the  more  genuine  is  the  exercise 
of  faith.  "Religious  light,"  says  Mr.  Newman,  "  is  intellectual 
darkness."  ^ 

5.  It  is  on  the  same  principle  the  Roman  Catholic  missions 
have  always  been  conducted.  The  people  are  converted  not  by 
the  truth,  not  by  a  course  of  instruction,  but  by  baptism.  They 
are  made  Christians  by  thousands,  not  by  the  inteUigent  adop- 
tion of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  doctrine,  of  that  they  may  be 
profoundly  ignorant,  but  by  simple  submission  to  the  Church  and 
its  prescribed  rites.  The  consequence  has  been  that  the  Catholic 
missions,  although  continued  in  some  instances  for  more  than  a 
hundred  years,  take  no  hold  on  the  people,  but  almost  uniformly 
die  out,  as  soon  as  the  supply  of  foreign  ministers  is  cut  off. 

§  5.  Faith  and  Feeling. 

It  has  already  been  seen,  — 

1.  That  faith,  the  act  of  believing,  cannot  properly  be  defined 
as  the  assent  of  the  understanding  determined  by  the  will. 
There  are,  unquestionably,  many  cases  in  which  a  man  believes 
against  his  will. 

2.  It  has  also  been  argued  that  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that 
faith  is  assent  founded  on  feeling.  On  this  point  it  was  ad- 
mitted that  a  man's  feelings  have  great  influence  upon  his  faith  ; 
that  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  believe  what  is  agreeable,  and 
difficult  to  believe  what  is  disagreeable.  It  was  also  admitted 
that  in  saving  faith,  the  gift  of  God,  resting  on  the  inward  illu- 
minating testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  there  is  a  discernment 
not  only  of  the  truth  but  of  \\\q  divine  excellence  of  the  things 
of  the  Spirit,  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  appropriate 
feeling.  It  was  moreover  conceded  that,  so  far  as  the  conscious-, 
ness  of  the  believer  is  concerned,  he  seems  to  receive  the  truth 
on  its  own  evidence,  on  its  excellence  and  power  over  his  heart 
and  conscience.  This,  however,  is  analogous  to  other  facts  in 
his  experience.  When  a  man  repents  and  believes,  he  is  con- 
scious only  of  his  own  exercises  and  not  of  the  supernatural  in- 

1  Sermons,  vol.  i.  p.  124. 


§5.]  FAITH   AND   FEELING.  89 

fluences  of  the  Spirit,  to  which  those  exercises  owe  their  origin 
and  nature.  Thus  also  in  the  exercise  of 'faith,  consciousness 
does  not  reach  the  inward  testimony  of  the  Spirit  on  which  that 
faith  is  founded.  Nevertheless,  notwithstanding  these  admissions, 
it  is  still  incorrect  to  say  that  faith  is  founded  on  feeling,  be- 
cause it  is  only  of  certain  forms  or  exercises  of  faith  that  this  can 
even  be  plausibly  said  ;  and  because  there  are  many  exercises 
of  even  saving  faith  (that  is,  of  faith  in  a  true  believer,)  which 
are  not  attended  by  feeling.  This  is  the  case  when  the  object 
of  faith  is  some  historical  fact.  Besides,  the  Scriptures  clearly 
teach  that  the  ground  of  faith  is  the  testimony  of  God,  or  dem- 
onstration of  the  Spirit.  He  has  revealed  certain  truths,  and 
attends  them  with  such  an  amount  and  kind  of  evidence,  as  pro- 
duces conviction,  and  we  receive  them  on  his  authority. 

3.  Faith  is  not  necessarily  connected  Avith  feeling.  Sometimes 
it  is,  and  sometimes  it  is  not.  Whether  it  is  or  not,  depends,  — 
(a.)  On  the  nature  of  the  object.  Belief  in  glad  tidings  is  of 
necessity  attended  by  joy  ;  of  evil  tidings  vntli  grief.  Belief  in 
moral  excellence  involves  a  feeling  of  approbation.  Belief  that  a 
certain  act  is  criminal,  involves  disapprobation.  (b.)  On  the 
proximate  ground  of  faith.  If  a  man  believes  that  a  picture  is 
beautiful  on  the  testimony  of  competent  judges,  there  is  no  ass.- 
tlietic  feeling  connected  with  his  faith.  But  if  he  personally  per- 
ceives the  beauty  of  the  object,  then  delight  is  inseparable  from 
the  conviction  that  it  is  beautiful.  In  like  manner  if  a  man 
believes  that  Jesus  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  on  the  mere  ex- 
ternal testimony  of  the  Bible,  he  experiences  no  due  impression 
from  that  truth.  But  if  his  faith  is  founded  on  the  inward  tes- 
timony of  the  Spirit,  by  which  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  revealed  to  him,  then  he  is  filled  with  adoriaig 
admiration  and  love. 

Religious  Faith  more  than  Simple  Assent. 

4.  Another  question  agitated  on  this  subject  is.  Whether  faith 
is  a  purely  intellectual  exercise  ;  or  Whether  it  is  also  an  exercise 
of  the  affections.  This  is  nearly  allied  to  the  preceding  question, 
and  must  receive  substantially  the  same  answer.  Bella^min,^ 
says,  "  Tribus  in  rebus  ab  haereticis  Catholici  dissentdunt ; 
Primum,  in  objecto  fidei  justificantis,  quod  hreretici  restringunt 
ad  solam  promissionem  misericordiffi  specialis,  Catholiei  tam 
late  patere  volunt,  quam  late  patet  verbum  Dei.  .  .  .  I>einde 

1  De  Justificatione,  lib.  i.  cap.  4,  Dlsputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  706,  d,  e. 


90  PART  III.     Cii.   XVL— FAITH. 

in  facilitate  et  potentia  animi  qiios  secies  est  fidei.  Siquidem 
illi  fidem  coUocant  in  voluntate  [sen  in  corde]  cum  fiduciam 
esse  definiunt ;  ac  per  hoc  earn  cum  spe  confundunt.  Fiducia 
enim  nihil  est  aliud,  nisi  spes  roborata.  .  .  .  Catholici  fidem 
in  intellectu  sedem  habere  decent.  Denique,  in  ipso  actu  intel- 
lectiis.  Ipsi  enim  per  notitiam  fidem  definiunt,  nos  per  assensum. 
Assentimur  enim  Deo,  quamvis  ea  nobis  credenda  proponat, 
qiiaB  non  intelligimus."  Regarding  faith  as  a  mere  intellectual 
or  speculative  act,  they  consistently  deny  that  it  is  necessarily 
connected  with  salvation.  According  to  their  doctrine,  a  man 
may  have  true  faith,  i.  e.,  the  faith  which  the  Scriptures  de- 
mand, and  yet  perish.  On  this  point  the  Council  of  Trent  says  : 
"  Si  qiiis  dixerit,  amissa  per  peccatum  gratia,  simul  et  fidem  sem- 
per amitti,  aut  fidem,  qu£e  remanet,  non  esse  veram  fidem,  licet 
non  sit  viva ;  aut  eum,  qui  fidem  sine  caritate  habet,  non  esse 
Christianum  ;  anathema  sit."  ^ 

Protestant  Doctrine. 

On  the  other  hand  Protestants  with  one  voice  maintain  that 
the  faith  wliich  is  connected  mth  salvation,  is  not  a  mere  intel- 
lectual exercise.  Calvin  says :  ^  "  Verum  observemus,  fidei 
sedem  non  in  cerebro  esse,  sed  in  corde :  neque  vero  de  eo  con- 
tenderim,  qua  in  parte  corporis  sita  sit  fides  :  sed  quoniam  cor- 
dis nomen  pro  serio  et  sincero  affectu  fere  capitur,  dico  firmam 
esse  et  efiicacem  fiduciam,  non  nudam  tantiim  notionem."  He 
also  says :  ^  Quodsi  expenderent  illud  Pauli,  Corde  creditur  ad 
justitiam  (Rom.  x.  10)  :  fingere  desinerent  frigidam  illam  qual- 
itatem.  Si  una  ha3C  nobis  suppeteret  ratio,  valere  deberet  ad 
litem  finiendam :  assensionem  scilicet  ipsam  sicuti  ex  parte  at- 
tigi,  et  fusius  iterum  rejoetam,  cordis  esse  magis  qiiam  cerebri,  et 
affectus  magis  qiiam  intelligentiffi." 

The  answer  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  to  the  question, 
What  is  Faith  ?  is,  "  It  is  not  merely  a  certain  knowledge, 
whereby  I  receive  as  true  all  that  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  his 
Word,  but  also  a  cordial  trust,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  works  in 
me  by  the  Gospel,  that  not  only  to  others,  but  to  me  also,  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  and  everlasting  righteousness  and  life  are 
given  by  God,  out  of  pure  grace,  and  only  for  the  sake  of 
Christ's  merit."* 

1  Session  vi.,  Canon  28  ;  Streitwolf,  Libri  SymboUci,  Gottingen,  1846,  vol.  i.  p.  37. 

2  On  Romans  x.  10  ;   Commentaries,  edit.  Berlin,  1831,  vol.  v.  p.  139. 
8  Jnstitutio.  HI.  ii.  8  ;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  i.  p.  358. 

*  Question  21. 


§  5.]  FAITH   AND   FEELING.  91 

That  saving  faith  is  not  a  mere  speculative  assent  of  the  un- 
derstanding, is  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  symbols. 
On  this  point,  however,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  the  first  place, 
that, as  has  often  been  stated  before,  the  Scriptures  do  not  make 
the  sharp  distinction  between  the  understanding,  the  feelings, 
and  the  will,  which  is  common  in  our  day.  A  large  class  of  our 
inward  acts  and  states  are  so  complex  as  to  be  acts  of  the  whole 
soul,  and  not  exclusively  of  any  one  of  its  faculties.  In  repent- 
ance there  is  of  necessity  an  intellectual  apprehension  of  our- 
selves as  sinners,  of  the  holiness  of  God,  of  liis  law  to  which  we 
have  failed  to  be  conformed  and  of  his  mercy  in  Christ ;  there  is 
a  moral  disa]3probation  of  our  character  and  conduct ;  a  feeling 
of  sorrow,  shame,  and  remorse  ;  and  a  purpose  to  forsake  sin  and 
lead  a  holy  life.  Scarcely  less  complex  is  the  state  of  mind  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  faith  as  it  exists  in  a  true  believer.  In  the 
second  place,  there  is  a  distinction  to  be  made  between  faith  in 
general  and  saving  faith.  If  we  take  that  element  of  faith 
which  is  common  to  every  act  of  believing  ;  if  we  understand  by 
it  the  apprehension  of  a  thing  as  true  and  worthy  of  confidence, 
whether  a  fact  of  history  or  of  science,  then  it  may  be  said  that 
faith  in  its  essential  nature  is  intellectual,  or  intelligent  assent. 
But  if  the  question  be,  What  is  that  act  or  state  of  mind  which  is 
required  in  the  Gospel,  when  we  are  commanded  to  believe  ;  the 
answer  is  very  different.  To  believe  that  Christ  is  ''  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,"  is  not  the  mere  intellectual  conviction  that  no 
one,  not  truly  divine,  could  be  and  do  what  Christ  was  and  did  ; 
for  this  conviction  demoniacs  avowed  ;  but  it  is  to  receive  Him  as 
our  God.  This  includes  the  apprehension  and  conviction  of  his 
divine  glory,  and  the  adoring  reverence,  love,  confidence,  and 
submission,  which  are  due  to  God  alone.  When  we  are  com- 
manded to  believe  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  we  are  not 
required  merely  to  assent  to  the  proposition  that  He  does  save 
sinners,  but  also  to  receive  and  rest  upon  Him  alone  for  our  own/ 
salvation.  What,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  mean  by  faith,  in 
tliis  connection,  the  faith  which  is  required  for  salvation,  is  an 
act  of  the  whole  soul,  of  the  understanding,  of  the  heart,  and  o| 
the  will. 

Proof  of  the  Protestant  Doctrine. 

The  Protestant  doctrine  that  saving  faith  includes  knowledge, 
assent,  and  trust,  and  is  not,  as  Romanists  teach,  mere  assent,  is 
sustained  by  abundant  proofs. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  proved  from  the  nature  of  the  object 


92  PART   III.     Cn.   XVI.  — FAITH. 

of  saving  faith.  That  object  is  not  merely  the  general  truth  of 
Scripture,  not  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  reveals  God's  plan  of  sav- 
ing sinners  ;  but  it  is  Christ  himself ;  his  person  and  work,  and 
the  offer  of  salvation  to  us  personally  and  individually.  From 
the  nature  of  the  case  we  cannot,  as  just  remarked,  believe  in 
Christ  on  the  inward  testimony  of  the  Spirit  which  reveals  his 
glory  and  his  love,  mthout  the  feelings  of  reverence,  love,  and 
trust  mingling  with  the  act  and  constituting  its  character.  Nor 
is  it  possible  that  a  soul  oppressed  with  a  sense  of  sin  should  re- 
ceive the  promise  of  deliverance  from  its  guilt  and  power,  ^vith- 
out  any  feehng  of  gratitude  and  confidence.  The  act  of  faith  in 
such  a  promise  is  in  its  nature  an  act  of  appropriation  and  confi- 
dence. 

2.  "We  accordingly  find  that  in  many  cases  in  the  Bible  the 
word  trust  is  used  instead  of  faith.  The  same  act  or  state  of 
mind  which  in  one  place  is  expressed  by  the  one  word,  is  in 
others  expressed  by  the  other.  The  same  promises  are  made  to 
trust  as  are  made  to  faith.  The  same  effects  are  attributed  to 
the  one,  that  are  attributed  to  the  other. 

3.  The  use  of  other  words  and  forms  of  expression  as  explana- 
tory of  the  act  of  faith,  and  substituted  for  that  word,  shows  that 
it  includes  trust  as  an  essential  element  of  its  nature.  We  are 
commanded  to  look  to  Christ,  as  the  dying  Israehtes  looked  up 
to  the  brazen  serpent.  This  looldng  involved  trusting ;  and 
looking  is  declared  to  be  believing.  Sinners  are  exhorted  to  flee 
to  Christ  as  a  refuge.  The  man-slayer  fled  to  the  city  of  refuge 
because  he  relied  upon  it  as  a  place  of  safety.  We  are  said  to 
receive  Christ,  to  rest  upon  Him,  to  lay  hold  of  Him.  All  these, 
and  other  modes  of  expression  which  teach  us  what  we  are  to  do 
when  we  are  commanded  to  beheve,  show  that  trust  is  an  essen- 
tial element  in  the  act  of  saving  faith. 

4.  The  command  to  believe  is  expressed  by  the  word  Tria-Tcuu) 
not  only  when  followed  by  the  accusative,  but  also  when  followed 
by  the  dative  and  by  the  prepositions  eVi',  eU,  iv.  But  the  literal 
meaning  of  Tna-Teveiv  et's,  or  eVt,  or  iv,  is  not  simply  to  believe,  but 
to  believe  upon,  to  confide  in,  to  trust.  Faith  in  a  promise  made. 
to  ourselves,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  an  act  of  confidence 
in  him  who  makes  the  promise. 

6.  Unbelief  is,  therefore,  expressed  by  doubt,  fear,  distrust, 
and  despair. 

6.  The  believer  knows  from  his  own  experience  that  when  he 
believes  he  receives  and  rests  on  Jesus  Christ  for  salvation,  as  He 
is  freely  offered  to  us  in  the  Gospel. 


§6.]  FAITH   AND   LOVE.  93 

The  controversy  between  Romanists  and  Protestants  on  this  \ 
subject  turns  on  the  view  taken  of  the  plan  of  salvation.     If,  as    I 
Protestants  hold,  every  man  in  order  to  be  saved,  must  receive    I 
the  record  which  God  has  given  of  his  Son  ;  must  believe  that  He    I 
is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  the  / 
prophet,  priest,  and  king  of  his  people,  then  it  must  be  admitted  / 
that  faith  involves  trust  in  Christ  as  to  us  the  source  of  wisdom/ 
righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption.     But  if,  as  Roman- 
ists teach,  the  benefits  of  redemption  are  conveyed  only  through 
the  sacraments,  effective  ex  opere  operato,  then  faith  is  the  oppo- 
site of  infidelity  in  its  popular  sense.     If  a  man  is  not  a  believer, 
he  is  an  infidel,  ^.  e.,  a  rejecter  of  Christianity.     The  object  of 
faith  is  divine  revelation  as  contained  in  the  Bible.    It  is  a  sim- 
ple assent  to  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  are  from  God,  and  that 
the  Church  is  a  divinely  constituted  and  supernaturally  endowed 
institute    for  the  salvation  of   men.     Believing  this,  the  sinner 
comes  to  the  Church  and  receives  through  her  ministrations,  in 
his  measure,  all  the  benefits  of  redemption.     According  to  tliis 
system  the  nature  and  office  of  faith  are  entirely  different  from 
what  they  are  according  to  the  Protestant  theory  of  the  Gospel. 

§  6.  Faith  and  Love. 

As  to  the  relation  between  faith  and  love  there  are  three  differ- 
ent views :  — 

1.  That  love  is  the  ground  of  faith  ;  that  men  believe  the  truth 
because  they  love  it.  Faith  is  founded  on  feeling.  This  view 
has  already  been  sufficiently  discussed. 

2.  That  love  is  the  invariable  and  necessary  attendant  and 
consequent  of  saving  faith.  As  no  man  can  see  and  believe  a 
thing  to  be  morally  good  without  the  feeling  of  approbation  ;  so 
no  one  can  see  and  believe  the  glory  of  God  as  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  without  adoring  reverence  being  awakened  in  his  soul ; 
no  one  can  believe  unto  salvation  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God 
and  the  Son  of  Man  ;  that  He  loved  us  and  gave  Himself  for  us, 
and  makes  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  without  love  and  devo- 
tion, in  proportion  to  the  clearness  and  strength  of  this  faith,  fill- 
ing the  heart  and  controlling  the  life.  Hence  faith  is  said  to 
work  by  love  and  to  purify  the  heart.  Romanists,  indeed,  ren- 
der 7rtWt5  8i  aydiTrj^  ii'€pyovfi€vr]  in  tliis  passage  (Gal.  V.  6),  "  faith 
perfected  or  completed  by  love."  But  this  is  contrary  to  the 
constant  usage  of  the  word  iiepyeia-OaL  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  always  used  in  a  middle  sense,  "  vim  suam  exserere." 


91  PART  III.     Cii.   XYI.  —  FAITIL 

Accoi'ding  to  tlie  Apostle's  teaching  in  Rom.  vii.  4-6,  love  with- 
out faith,  or  anterior  to  it,  is  impossible.  Until  we  believe,  we 
are  under  the  condemnation  of  the  law.  While  under  condemna- 
tion, Ave  are  at  enmity  with  God.  While  at  enmity  with  God, 
we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.  It  is  only  when  reconciled  to 
God  and  united  to  Christ,  that  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God 
Believinq;  that  God  loves  us  we  love  Him.  Believing  that  Christ 
gave  Himself  for  us,  we  devote  our  lives  to  Him.  Believing  that 
the  fashion  of  this  world  passes  away,  that  the  things  unseen  are 
eternal,  those  who  have  that  faith  which  is  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  and  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen,  set  their  affections 
on  things  above  where  Christ  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 
Tliis  necessary  connection  between  faith  and  love,  has  already 
been  sufficiently  insisted  upon. 

Romanists  make  Love  the  Essence  of  Faith. 

3.  The  third  doctrinal  view  on  this  subject  is  that  of  the  Ro- 
manists, who  make  love  the  essence  of  faith.  In  other  words,  love 
with  them  is  the  form  (in  the  scholastic  sense  of  the  word)  of 
faith  ;  it  is  that  which  gives  it  being  or  character  as  a  Christian 
virtue  or  grace.  While  on  the  one  hand  they  teach,  as  we 
have  seen  with  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  faith  is  in  itself  mere 
intellectual  assent,  without  any  moral  virtue,  and  which  may  be 
exercised  by  the  unrenewed  or  by  those  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin ; 
on  the  other  hand,  they  hold  that  there  is  such  a  Christian  grace 
as  faith  ;  but  in  that  case,  faith  is  only  another  name  for  love. 
This  is  not  the  distinction  between  a  living  and  dead  faith  which 
the  Scriptures  and  all  Evangelical  Christians  recognize.  With 
Romanists  the  fides  informis  is  true  faith,  and  the  fides  formata 
is  love.  On  this  point,  Peter  Lombard  ^  says  :  "  Fides  qua  dici- 
tur  [creditur  ?J ,  si  cum  caritate  sit,  virtus  est,  quia  caritas  ut  ait 
Ambrosius  mater  est  omnium  virtutum,  quaj  omnes  informat,  sine 
qua  nulla  vera  virtus  est."  Thomas  Aquinas  ^  says  :  "  Actus  fidei 
ordinatur  ad  objectum  voluntatis,  quod  est  bonum,  sicut  ad  finem. 
Hoc  autem  bonum  quod  est  finis  fidei,  scilicet  bonum  divinum,  est 
proprium  objectum  charitatis  :  et  ideo  charitas  dicitur  forma  fidei, 
in  quantum  per  charitatem  actus  fidei  perficitur  et  formatur." 
Bellarmin  ^  says  :  "  Quod  si  charitas  est  forma  fidei,  et  fides  non 
justificat  formahter,  nisi  ab  ipsa  caritate  formata  certe   multo 

1  Liber  Sententiarum,  iii.  xxiii.  C.  edit.  1472(?). 

2  Su?nma,  u.  ii.  quaest.  iv.  art.  -3,  edit.  Coloj^ne,  1640,  p.  11,  a,  of  third  set. 

3  Be  Juscijicatione,  lib.  ii.  cap.  4 ;  Disputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1G03,  vol.  iv.  pp.  789,  a,  b 
790,  c. 


§  7.]  ITS   OBJECT.  95 

magis  cliaritas  ipsa  justificat Fides  quaj  agitur.  ac  niove- 

tur,  formatur,  et  quasi  animatur  per  dilectionem Apostolus 

Pavilus  ....  explicat  dilectionem  formani  esse  extrinsecam  fidei 
non  intrinsecam,  quse  det  illi,  non  ut  sit,  sed  ut  moveatur."  All 
this  is  intelligible  and  reasonable,  provided  we  admit  subjective 
justification,  and  the  merit  of  good  works.  If  justification  is 
sanctification,  then  it  may  be  admitted  that  love  has  more  to  do 
with  making  men  holy,  than  faith  considered  as  mere  intellectual 
assent.  And  if  it  be  conceded  that  we  are  accepted  by  God  on 
the  ground  of  our  own  virtue,  then  it  may  be  granted  that  love  is 
more  valuable  than  any  mere  exercise  of  the  intellect.  Roman- 
ists argue,  "  Maxima  virtus  maxime  justificat.  Dilectio  est  max- 
ima virtus.  Ergo  maxime  justificat."  It  was  because  this  distinc- 
tion between  a  "  formed  and  unformed  faith  "  was  made  in  the 
interest  of  justification  on  the  ground  of  our  own  character  and 
merit,  that  Luther,  with  his  usual  vehement  power,  says  :  "  Ipsi 
duplicem  faciunt  fidem,  informem  et  formatam,  hanc  pestilentissi- 
mam  et  satanicam  glossam  non  possum  non  vehementer  detestari." 
It  is  only  as  connected  with  false  views  of  justification  that  this 
question  has  any  real  importance.  For  it  is  admitted  by  all  Prot- 
estants that  saving  faith  and  love  are  inseparably  connected  ; 
that  faith  without  love,  i.  e.,  that  a  faith  wliich  does  not  produce 
love  and  good  works,  is  dead.  But  Protestants  are  strenuous  in 
denying  that  we  are  justified  on  account  of  love,  which  is  the 
real  meaning  of  the  Romanists  when  they  say  "  fides  non  justifi- 
cat formaliter,  nisi  ab  ipsa  caritate  formata." 

§  7.   The  Object  of  Saving  Faith. 
Fides  Generalis. 

It  is  conceded  that  all  Christians  are  bound  to  believe,  and  that 
all  do  believe  everything  taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  so  far  as  the 
contents  of  the  Scriptures  are  known  to  them.  It  is  correct,  there- 
fore, to  say  that  the  object  of  faith  is  the  whole  revelation  of  God 
as  contained  in  his  Word.  As  the  Bible  is  with  Protestants  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  nothing  not  expressly 
taught  in  Scripture,  or  deduced  therefrom  by  necessary  inference, 
can  be  imposed  on  the  people  of  God  as  an  article  of  faith.  This 
is  "  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,"  and  in  which 
we  are  bound  to  stand  fast.  This  is  our  protection  on  the  one 
hand,  against  the  usurpations  of  the  Church.  Rcmanisls  claim 
for   the  Church  the  prerogative  of  infallible   and  authoritative 


96  PART  III.     Ch.   XVL— faith. 

teaclimg.  The  people  are  bound  to  believe  wliatever  the  Church, 
i.  e.,  its  organs  the  bishops,  declare  to  be  a  part  of  the  revelation 
of  God.  They  do  not,  indeed,  assume  the  right  "  to  make  "  new- 
articles  of  faith.  But  they  claim  the  authority  to  decide,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  bind  the  conscience  of  the  people,  what  the  Bible 
teaches  ;  and  what  by  tradition  tlie  Church  knows  to  be  included 
in  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  This  gives  them  lat- 
itude enough  to  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 
Bellarniin  ^  says :  "  Omnium  dogmatum  firmitas  pendet  ab  aucto- 
ritate  prajsentis  ecclesiae."  On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  is  not 
only  against  the  usurpations  of  the  Church,  that  the  principle 
above  mentioned  is  our  security,  but  also  against  the  tyranny 
of  public  opinion.  Men  are  as  impatient  of  contradiction  now  as 
they  ever  were.  They  manifest  the  same  desire  to  have  their 
own  opinions  enacted  into  laws,  and  enforced  by  divine  authority. 
And  they  are  as  fierce  in  their  denunciations  of  all  who  venture 
to  oppose  them.  Hence  they  meet  in  conventions  or  other  assem- 
bhes,  ecclesiastical  or  voluntary,  and  decide  what  is  true  and  what 
is  false  in  doctrine,  and  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong  in  mor- 
als. Against  all  undue  assumptions  of  authority,  true  Protestants 
hold  fast  to  the  two  great  principles,  —  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment, and  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  The  object  of  faith,  therefore,  is  all  the  truths  re- 
vealed in  the  Word  of  God.  All  that  God  in  the  Bible  declares 
4p  be  true,  we  are  bound  to  believe.  This  is  what  tlieologians 
call  fides  geiieralis. 

Fides  Specialis. 

But,  besides  this,  there  is  a  fides  specialis  necessary  to  salvation. 
In  the  general  contents  of  the  Scrijjtures  there  are  certain  doc- 
trines concerning  Christ  and  his  work,  and  certain  promises  of 
> salvation  made  through  Him  to  sinful  men,  which  we  are  bound  to 
receive  and  on  which  we  are  required  to  trust.  The  special  object 
of  faith,  therefore,  is  Christ,  and  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
Him.  And  the  special  definite  act  of  faith  which  secures  our  sal- 
vation is  the  act  of  receiving  and  resting  on  Him  as  He  is  offered 
to  us  in  the  Gospel.  This  is  so  clearly  and  so  variously  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  as  hardly  to  admit  of  being  questioned. 

Christ's  Testimony. 

In  the  first  place,  our  Lord  repeatedly  declares  that  what  men 
are  required  to  do,  and  what  they  are  condemned  because  they 

1  De  Sacram.  lib.  ii.  c.  2.  ( ?) 


§  7.]  ITS   OBJECT.  97 

do  not  do,  is  to  believe  on  Him.  He  was  lifted  up,  "  That  who- 
soever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life." 
(John  iii.  15.)  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned: 
but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath 
not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God." 
(v.  18.)  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life : 
but  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  (v.  36.)  "  This  is  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seetli  the  Son,  and  be- 
lieveth on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise  hun 
up  at  the  last  day."  (John  vi.  40.)  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you.  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life.     I  am  that 

bread  of  life This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from 

heaven,  ....  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for- 
ever." (vers.  47-51.)  In  another  place  our  Lord  says,  "  This 
is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  liim  whom  he  hath  sent." 
(Jolm  vi.  29.)  The  passages,  however,  in  which  faith  in  Christ 
is  expressly  demanded  as  the  condition  of  salvation,  are  too  nu- 
merous to  be  cited. 

We  are  said  to  be  saved  by  receiving  Christ. 

That  Christ  is  the  immediate  object  of  saving  faith  is  also 
taught  in  all  those  passages  in  which  we  are  said*  to  receive 
Christ,  or  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  Christ,  and  in  which 
this  act  of  receiving  is  said  to  secure  our  salvation.  For  example, 
in  John  i.  12,  "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God."  "I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name, 
and  ye  receive  me  not."  (John  v.  43.)  "  If  we  receive  the 
witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater :  for  this  is  the  wit- 
ness of  God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his  Son.  He  that  believeth 
on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself :  he  that  beheveth 
not  God  has  made  him  a  liar ;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son."  (1  John  v.  9,  10.)  "  He  that  hath 
the  Son  hath  life ;  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not 
life."  (v.  12.)  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Chi-ist 
is  born  of  God."  (v.  1.)  It  is,  therefore,  receiving  Christ ;  re- 
ceiving the  record  which  God  has  given  of  his  Son  ;  believing  that 
He  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  which  is  tlie  specific 
act  required  of  us  in  order  to  salvation.  Christ,  therefore,  is  the 
immediate  object  of  those  exercises  of  faith  which  secure  salva- 
tion. And,  therefore,  faith  is  expressed  by  looking  to  Christ  j 
coming  to  Christ ;  committing  the  soul  to  Him,  etc. 


98  PART  ni.     Cn.  XVI.— FAITH. 

Teaching  of  the  Apostles. 
Accordingly  the  Apostle  teaches  Ave  are  justified  "  by  the  faith 
of  Christ,"  It  is  not  faith  as  a  pious  disposition  of  the  mind ; 
not  faith  as  general  confidence  in  God ;  not  faith  in  the  truth  of 
divine  revelation  ;  much  less  faith  "  in  eternal  verities,"  or  the 
general  principles  of  truth  and  duty,  but  that  faith  of  which 
Christ  is  the  object.  Romans  iii.  22:  "  The  righteousness  of  God 
■which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that 
believe."  Galatians  ii.  16  :  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even 
we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by 
the  faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law."  iii.  2-i  : 
"  The  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith."  v.  26  :  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  Galatians  ii.  20  :  "I  Uve  by 
the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,"  etc.,  etc. 

Christ  our  Ransom. 

Christ  declares  that  He  gave  Himself  as  a  ransom  for  many  ; 
He  was  set  forth  as  a  propitiation  for  sins  ;  He  offered  Himself  as 
a  sacrifice  unto  God.  It  is  through  the  merit  of  his  righteousness 
and  death  that  men  are  saved.  All  these  representations  which 
pervade  the  Scriptures  necessarily  assume  that  the  faith  which 
secures  salvation  must  have  special  reference  to  Him.  If  He  is 
our  Redeemer,  we  must  receive  and  trust  Him  as  such.  If  He  is 
a  propitiation  for  sins,  it  is  through  faith  in  his  blood  that  we  are 
reconciled  to  God.  The  whole  plan  of  salvation,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Gospel,  supposes  that  Christ  m  his  person  and  work  is  the 
object  of  faith  and  the  ground  of  confidence. 

We  live  in  Christ  hy  Faith. 

The  same  thing  follows  from  the  representations  given  of  the 
relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ.  We  are  in  Him  by  faith.  He 
dwells  in  us.  He  is  the  head  from  whom  we,  as  members  of  liis 
body,  derive  our  life.  He  is  the  vine,  we  are  the  branches.  It  is 
not  we  that  Uve,  but  Christ,  who  livetli  in  us.  These  and  other 
representations  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  it  is 
a  vague  general  faith  in  God  or  in  the  Scriptures  which  secures 
our  salvation.  It  is  a  faith  which  terminates  directly  on  Christ, 
which  takes  Him  to  be  our  God  and  Saviour.  God  sent  his  Son 
into  the  world,  clothed  in  our  nature,  to  reveal  his  will,  to  die  for 


§  7.1  ITS   OBJECT.  99 

our  sins  and  to  rise  again  for  our  justification.  In  Him  dwells 
the  fulness  of  the  Godliead,  from  his  fuhiess  Ave  are  filled.  He  to 
us  is  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption.  Those 
who  receive  this  Saviour  as  being  all  He  claimed  to  be,  and  com- 
mit their  souls  into  his  hands  to  be  used  in  his  service  and  saved 
to  his  glory,  are,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  believers. 
Christ  is  not  only  the  object  of  their  faith,  but  their  whole  in- 
ward, sj^irltual  life  terminates  on  Him.  Nothing,  therefore,  can 
be  more  foreign  to  the  Gospel  than  the  Romish  doctrine,  substan- 
tially revived  by  the  modern  philosophy  which  turns  the  mind 
away  from  the  historical,  really  existing,  objective  Christ,  to  the 
work  within  us  ;  leaving  us  nothing  to  love  and  trust,  but  what 
is  in  our  own  miserable  hearts. 

Christ  is  not  received  in  a  Special  Office  alone. 

Admitting  that  Christ  is  the  immediate  and  special  object  of 
those  acts  of  faith  which  secure  salvation,  it  is  asked.  Whether  it 
is  Christ  in  all  his  offices,  or  Christ  in  his  priestly  office,  especially, 
that  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith  ?  This  seems  an  unnecessary 
question.  It  is  not  raised  in  the  Bible  ;  nor  does  it  suggest  itself 
to  the  believer.  He  receives  Christ.  He  does  not  ask  himself  for 
what  special  function  of  his  saving  work  he  thus  accepts  Him.  He 
takes  Him  as  a  Saviour,  as  a  deliverer  from  the  guilt  and  power 
of  sin,  from  the  dominion  of  Satan,  and  from  all  the  evils  of  his 
apostasy  from  God.  He  takes  Him  as  his  wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification,  and  redemption.  He  takes  Him  as  his  God  and 
Saviour,  as  the  full,  complete,  satisfying,  life-giving  portion  of 
the  soul.  If  this  complex  act  of  apprehension  and  surrender  were 
analyzed  it  doubtless  would  be  found  to  include  submission  to  all 
his  teaching,  reliance  on  his  righteousness  and  intercession,  sub- 
jection to  his  will,  confidence  in  his  protection,  and  devotion  to 
his  service.  As  He  is  offered  to  us  as  a  prophet,  priest,  and  king, 
as  such  He  is  accepted.  And  as  He  is  offered  to  us  as  a  source 
of  life,  and  glory,  and  blessedness,  as  the  supreme  object  of  ado- 
ration and  love,  as  such  He  is  joyfully  accepted. 

Is  the  Sinner  required  to  believe  that  Grod  loves  him  ? 

Again,  it  is  questioned,  "Whether  the  object  of  saving  faith  is 
that  God  is  reconciled  to  us  ;  that  our  sins  are  forgiven ;  that  we 
are  the  objects  of  the  saving  love  of  God  ?  This  is  not  the  ques- 
tion above  considered,  namely,  Whether,  as  Romanists  say,  the 
object  of  faith  is  the  whole  revelation  of  God,  or,  as  Protestants 


100  PART  m.     Cii.   XVI.  — FAITH. 

contend,  Christ  and  the  promise  of  redemption  through  Him,  al- 
though many  of  the  arguments  of  the  Romanists  are  directed 
against  the  special  form  of  the  doctrine  just  stated.  They  argue 
that  it  is  contradictory  to  say  that  we  are  pardoned  because  we 
bcilieve ;  and,  in  the  same  breath,  to  say  that  the  thing  to  be 
believed  is  that  our  sins  are  already  pardoned.  Again,  they  argue 
that  the  only  proper  object  of  faith  is  some  revelation  of  God,  but 
it  is  nowhere  revealed  that  Ave  individually  are  reconciled  to  God, 
or  that  our  sins  are  pardoned,  or  that  we  are  the  objects  of  that 
special  love  which  God  has  to  his  OAvn  people. 

In  answer  to  the  first  of  these  objections,  the  Reformed  theolo- 
gians were  accustomed  to  say,  that  a  distinction  is  to  be  made 
between  the  remission  of  sin  de  jure  already  obtained  through  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  remission  de  facto  through  the  efficacious 
application  of  it  to  us.  In  the  former  sense,  "  remissio  peccatorum 
jam  impetrata  "  is  the  object  of  faith.  In  the  latter  sense,  it  is 
"remissio  impetranda,"  because  faith  is  the  instrumental  cause  of 
justification,  and  must  precede  it.  "  Unde,"  says  Turrettin,^ 
"  ad  obtinendam  remissionem  peccatorum,  non  debeo  credere 
peccata  mihi  jam  remissa,  ut  perperam  nobis  impingunt ;  sed 
debeo  credere  peccata  mihi  credenti  et  poenitenti,  juxta  promis- 
sionem  factam  credentibus  et  poenitentibus,  remissum  iri  certis- 
sime,  quEe  postea  actu  secundari  et  reflexo  ex  sensu  fidei  credo 
mihi  esse  remissa." 

The  second  objection  was  answered  by  distinguishing  between 
the  direct  and  the  reflex  act  of  faith.  By  the  direct  act  of  faith, 
we  embrace  Christ  as  our  Saviour ;  by  the  reflex  act,  arising  out 
of  the  consciousness  of  believing,  we  believe  that  He  loved  us  and 
died  for  us,  and  that  nothing  can  ever  separate  us  from  his  love. 
These  two  acts  are  inseparable,  not  only  as  cause  and  effect,  ante- 
cedent and  consequent ;  but  they  are  not  separated  in  time,  or  in 
the  consciousness  of  the  believer.  They  are  only  different  ele- 
ments of  the  complex  act  of  accepting  Christ  as  He  is  offered  in 
the  Gospel.  AVe  cannot  separate  the  joy  and  gratitude  with 
which  a  great  favour  is  accepted.  Although  a  psychological 
analysis  might  resolve  these  emotions  into  the  effects  of  the  act  of 
acceptance,  they  belong,  as  revealed  in  consciousness,  to  the  very' 
nature  of  the  act.  It  is  a  cordial  and  grateful  acceptance  of  a 
promise  made  to  all  who  embrace  it.  If  a  general  promise  of 
pardon  be  made  to  criminals  on  the  condition  of  the  confession  of 
guilt,  every  one  of  their  number  avIio  makes  the  confession  knows 

1  Institutio,  XV.  xii.  6 ;    Works,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  508. 


§  7.]  ITS   OBJECT.  101 

or  believes  that  the  promise  is  made  to  him.  On  this  point  the 
early  Reformed  and  Lutheran  theologians  were  agreed  in  teaching 
that  when  the  sinner  exercises  saving  faith  He  believes  that  for 
Christ's  sake  he  is  pardoned  and  accepted  of  God.  In  other 
words,  that  Christ  loved  him  and  gave  Himself  for  him.  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  "  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  ^  the  symbol- 
ical book  of  so  large  a  portion  of  the  Reformed  Church,  declares 
saving  faith  to  be  "  Certa  fiducia,  a  Spiritu  Sancto  per  evange- 
lium  in  corde  meo  accensa,  qua  in  Deo  acquiesco,  certo  statuens, 
non  solum  aliis,  sed  mihi  quoque  remissionem  peccatorum  aaternam, 
justitiam  et  vitam  donatam  esse,  idque  gratis,  ex  Dei  misericordia, 
propter  unius  Christi  meritum."  In  the  "  Apology  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church  "  it  is  said,^  "  Nos  prse- 
ter  illam  fidem  [fidem  generalem]  requirimus,  ut  credat  sibi  quis- 
que  remitti  peccata."  Calvin  says,^  "  Gratiae  promissione  opus 
est,  qua  nobis  testificetur  se  propitium  esse  Patrem  :  quando  nee 
aliter  ad  eum  appropinquare  possumus,  et  in  eam  solam  reclinare 

cor  hominis  potest Nunc  justa  fidei  definitio  nobis  consta- 

bit,  si  dicamus  esse  divings  erga  nos  benevolentiae  firmam  certam- 
que  cognitionem,  quae  gratuitse  in  Christo  promissionis  veritate 
fundata,  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  et  revelatur  mentibus  nostris  et 
cordibus  obsignatur."  "  Hie  praicipuus  fidei  cardo  vertitur,  ne 
quas  Dominus  offert  misericordise  promissiones,  extra  nos  tantum 
veras  esse  arbitremur,  in  nobis  minime  :  sed  ut  potius  eas  intus 

complectendo  nostras  faciamus In  summa,  vere  fidelis  non 

est  nisi  qui  solida  persuasione  Deum  sibi  propitium  benevolumque 
patrem  esse  persuasus,  de  ejus  benignitate  omnia  sibi  pollicetur : 
nisi  qui  divinte  erga  se  benevolentige  promissionibus  fretus,  indu- 
bitatam  salutis  expectationem  praisumit." 

This  is  strong  language.  The  doctrine,  however,  is  not  that 
faith  implies  assurance.  The  question  concerns  the  nature  of  the 
object  seen,  not  the  clearness  of  the  vision  ;  Avliat  it  is  that  the 
soul  believes,  not  the  strength  of  its  faith.  This  Calvin  himself 
elsewhere  beautifully  exj)resses,  saying,  "  When  the  least  drop  of 
faith  is  instilled  into  our  minds,  we  begin  to  see  the  serene  and 
placid  face  of  our  reconciled  Father  ;  far  off  and  on  high,  it  may 
be,  but  still  it  is  seen."  A  man  in  a  dungeon  may  see  only  a  ray 
of  light  streaming  through  a  crevice.  This  is  very  different  from 
broad  daylight.     Nevertheless,  what  he  sees  is  hght.     So  what 

^  XXI. ;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessiomim,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  434. 

2  V.  60;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolid,  Leipzig,  1846,  p.  172. 

»  Institutiu,  lib.  III.  ii.  7,  16;  edit.  Beriin,  1834,  vol.  i.  pp.  357,  364. 


102  PART  m.   Ch.  XVI.  — faith. 

the  penitent  sinner  believes  is,  that  God  for  Christ's  sake  is  recon- 
ciled to  him.  It  may  be  with  a  very  dim  and  doubtful  vision,  he 
apprehends  that  truth  ;  but  that  is  the  truth  on  which  his  trust 
is  stayed. 

Proof  of  this  Doctrine. 

This  is  involved  in  the  appropriation  of  the  general  promise  of 
the  Gospel.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  is  love  ;  that  He 
set  forth  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for  sin  ;  that  in  Him  He  is 
reconciled  ;  that  He  will  receive  all  who  come  to  Him  through 
Christ.  To  appropriate  these  general  declarations,  is  to  believe 
that  they  are  true,  not  only  in  relation  to  others,  but  to  ourselves 
that  God  is  reconciled  to  us.  We  have  no  right  to  exclude  our- 
selves. This  self-exclusion  is  unbelief.  It  is  refusing  to  take  of 
the  waters  of  life,  freely  offered  to  all. 

Cfalatians  ii.  20. 

Accordingly  the  Apostle  in  Galatians  ii.  20,  says,  "  The  life 
which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  Himself  for  me."  The  object  of 
the  Apostle's  faith,  therefore,  the  truths  which  he  believed,  and 
faith  in  which  gave  life  to  his  soul,  were,  (1.)  That  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  ;  (2.)  That  He  loved  him  ;  (3.)  That  He  gave  Him- 
self for  him.  The  faith  by  which  a  believer  Hves,  is  not  specifi- 
cally different  in  its  nature  or  object  from  the  faith  required  of 
every  man  in  order  to  his  salvation.  The  life  of  faith  is  only  the 
continued  repetition,  it  may  be  with  ever  increasing  strength  and 
clearness,  of  those  exercises  by  which  we  first  receive  Christ,  in 
all  his  fulness  and  in  all  his  offices,  as  our  God  and  Saviour. 
"  Qui  fit  ut  vivamus  Christi  fide  ?  quia  nos  dilexit,  et  se  ipsum 
tradidit  pro  nobis.  Amor,  inquam,  quo  nos  complexus  est 
Christus,  fecit  ut  se  nobis  coadunaret.  Id  implevit  morte  sua  : 
nam  se  ipsum   tradendo  pro  nobis,  non  secus   atque  in  persona 

nostra  passus  est Neque  parum  energiaB   habet   pro  me : 

quia  non  satis  fuerit  Christum  pro  mundi  salute  mortuum  repu- 
tare,  nisi  sibi  quisque  effectum  ac  possessionem  hujus  gratias  pri- 
vatim  vindicet."  ^ 

It  is  objected  to  this  view  of  the  case  that  by  the  "  love  of 
God,"  or  "of  Christ,"  in  the  above  statement,  is  not  meant  the 
general  benevolence  or  philanthropy  of  God,  but  his  special,  elect- 
ing, and  saving  love.  When  Paul  said  he  lived  by  the  faith  of 
Christ  who  loved  him,  and  gave  Himself  for  him,  he  meant  some* 

1  Calvin  in  loco. 


§  7.J  ITS   OBJECT.  103 

tiling  more  than  that  Christ  loved  all  men  and  therefore  him 
among  the  rest.  He  evidently  believed  himself  to  be  a  special 
object  of  the  Saviour's  love.  It  Avas  this  conAdction  which  gave 
poAver  to  his  faitli.  And  a  like  conviction  enters  into  the  faith  of 
every  true  believer.  But  to  this  it  is  objected  that  faith  must 
have  a  divine  revelation  for  its  object.  But  there  is  no  revela- 
tion of  God's  special  love  to  individuals,  and,  therefore,  no  indi- 
vidual has  any  Scriptural  ground  to  believe  that  Christ  loved 
him,  and  gave  Himself  for  him.  Whatever  force  there  may  be  in 
this  objection,  it  bears  against  Paul's  declaration  and  experience. 
He  certainly  did  believe  that  Christ  loved  him  and  died  for  him. 
It  Avill  not  do  to  say  that  this  Avas  a  conclusion  draAvn  from  his 
OAvn  experience  ;  or  to  assume  that  the  Apostle  argued  himself 
into  the  conviction  that  Christ  loved  him.  Christ  specially  loves 
all  Avho  believe  upon  Him.  I  believe  upon  Him.  Therefore 
Christ  specially  loves  me.  But  a  conclusion  reached  by  argu- 
ment is  not  an  object  of  faith.  Faith  must  rest  on  the  testimony 
of  God.  It  must  be,  therefore,  that  God  in  some  Avay  testifies 
to  the  soul  that  it  is  the  object  of  his  love.  This  he  does  in  tAvo 
Avays.  First,  by  the  general  invitations  and  promises  of  the  Gos- 
pel. The  act  of  appropriating,  or  of  accepting  these  promises,  is 
to  believe  that  they  belong  to  us  as  Avell  as  to  others.  Secondly, 
by  the  iuAvard  Avitness  of  the  Spirit.  Paul  says  (Rom.  v.  5), 
"  The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  Avhich  is  given  unto  us."  That  is,  the  Holy  Ghost  con- 
vinces us  that  Ave  are  the  objects  of  God's  love.  This  is  done,  not 
only  by  the  various  manifestations  of  his  love  in  providence  and 
redemption,  but  by  his  inAvard  dealings  Avith  the  soul.  "  He 
that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  aa^II  love  him, 
and  Avill  manifest  myself  to  him."  (John  xiv.  21).  This  manifes- 
tation is  not  outAvard  through  the  Avord.  It  is  iuAvard.  God  has 
felloAvship  or  intercourse  Avith  the  souls  of  his  people.  The 
Spirit  calls  forth  our  love  to  God,  and  reveals  his  love  to  us. 
Again,  in  Romans  viii.  16,  the  Apostle  says,  "  The  Spirit  itself 
beareth  Avitness  Avith  our  spirit,  that  Ave  are  the  children  of  God." 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  Spirit  excites  in  us  filial  feelings 
toAvard  God,  from  Avhence  Ave  infer  that  Ave  are  his  children. 
The  Apostle  refers  to  tAvo  distinct  sources  of  evidence  of  our  adop- 
tion. The  one  is  that  Ave  can  call  God  Father  ;  the  other,  the 
testimony  of  the  Spirit.  The  latter  is  joined  Avith  the  former. 
The  AVord  is  o-vfLfxaprvpi't,  unites  in  testifying.  Hence  Ave  are  said 
to  be  sealed,  not  only  marked  and  secured,  but  assured  by  the 


104  PART  III.     Cn.  XVL  — FAITH. 

Spirit ;  and  tlie  Sj)irit  is  a  pledge,  an  assurance,  that  we  are,  and 
ever  shall  be,  the  objects  of  God's  saving  love.  (Eph.  i.  13,  14  ; 
iv.  30.     2  Cor.  i.  22.) 

This  is  not  saying  that  a  man  must  believe  that  he  is  one  of 
the  elect.  Election  is  a  secret  purpose  of  God.  The  election  of 
any  particular  person  is  not  revealed,  and,  therefore,  is  not  an 
object  of  faith.  It  is  a  thing  to  be  proved,  or  made  sure,  as  the 
Apostle  Peter  says,  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  All  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Reformers  on  this  subject  includes  is,  that  the  soul  in 
committing  itself  to  Christ  does  so  as  to  one  who  loved  it  and 
died  for  its  salvation.  The  woman  healed  by  touching  our  Sav- 
iour's garment,  believed  that  she  was  an  object  of  his  coiTipassion- 
ate  love,  because  all  who  touched  Him  with  faith  were  included 
in  that  number.     Her  faith  included  that  conviction. 

^%.  Effects  of  Faith. 
Union  with  Christ. 

The  first  effect  of  faith,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  union 
with  Christ.  We  are  in  Him  by  faith.  There  is  indeed  a  fed- 
eral union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  founded  on  the  cove- 
nant of  redemption  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  coun- 
sels of  eternity.  We  are,  therefore,  said  to  be  in  Him  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  It  is  one  of  the  promises  of  that  cove- 
nant, that  all  whom  the  Father  had  given  the  Son  should  come 
to  Him  ;  that  his  people  should  be  made  willing  in  the  day  of  his 
power.  Christ  has,  therefore,  been  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of 
God,  to  give  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins.  But  it  was 
also,  as  we  learn  from  the  Scriptures,  included  in  the  stipulations 
of  that  covenant,  that  his  people,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned, 
should  not  receive  the  saving  benefits  of  that  covenant  until  they 
were  united  to  Him  by  a  voluntary  act  of  faith.  They  are  "  by 
nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  (Eph.  ii.  3.) 
They  remain  in  this  state  of  condemnation  until  tliey  believe. 
Their  union  is  consummated  by  faith.  To  be  in  Christ,  and  to 
believe  in  Christ,  are,  therefore,  in  the  Scriptures  convertible- 
forms  of  expression.  They  mean  substantially  the  same  thing, 
and,  therefore,  the  same  effects  are  attributed  to  faith  as  are  at- 
tributed to  union  mth  Cln-ist. 


§8.]  ITS  EFFECTS.  105 

Justification  an  Effect  of  Faith. 
The  proximate  effect  of  this  union,  and,  consequently,  the  sec- 
ond effect  of  faith,  is  justification.  We  are  "justified  by  the 
faith  of  Christ."  (Gal.  ii.  16.)  "  There  is  therefore  now  no 
condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  (Rom.  viii. 
1.)  "He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned."  (John 
iii.  18.)  Faith  is  the  condition  on  which  God  promises  in  the 
covenant  of  redemption,  to  impute  unto  men  the  righteousness 
of  Clu'ist.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  they  believe,  they  camiot  be 
condemned.  They  are  clothed  with  a  righteousness  which  an- 
swers all  the  demands  of  justice.  "  Who  shall  lay  anything  to 
the  charge  of  God's  elect  ?  It  is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he 
that  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen 
again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us."     (Rom.  viii.  33,  34.) 

Participation  of  Chrisfs  Life  an  Effect  of  Faith. 

The  third  effect  of  faith,  or  of  union  with  Christ,  is  a  partici- 
pation of  his  life.  Those  united  with  Christ,  the  Apostle  teaches 
(Rom.  vi.  4-10),  so  as  to  be  partakers  of  his  death,  are  par- 
takers also  of  his  life.  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also." 
(John  xiv.  19.)  Christ  dwells  in  our  hearts  by  faith.  (Eph. 
iii.  17.)  Christ  is  in  us.  (Rom.  viii.  10.)  It  is  not  we  that 
live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  us.  (Gal.  ii.  20.)  Our  Lord's  illustra- 
tion of  this  vital  union  is  derived  from  a  vine  and  its  branches. 
(John  XV.  1-6.)  As  the  life  of  the  vine  is  diffused  through  the 
branches,  and  as  they  live  only  as  connected  with  the  vine,  so 
the  life  of  Christ  is  diffused  through  his  people,  and  they  are 
partakers  of  spiritvial  and  eternal  life,  only  in  virtue  of  their 
union  with  Him.  Another  familiar  illustration  of  this  subject  is 
derived  from  the  human  body.  The  members  derive  their  life 
from  the  head,  and  perish  if  separated  from  it. ,  (Eph.  i.  22  ; 
1  Cor.  xii.  12-27,  and  often).  In  Ephesians  iv.  15,  16,  the 
Apostle  carries  out  this  illustration  in  detail.  "  The  head,  even 
Christ :  from  whom  the  whole  body  fitly  joined  together  and 
compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the 
effectual  working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase 
of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  As  the  prin- 
ciple of  animal  life  located  in  the  head,  through  the  compli- 
cated yet  ordered  system  of  nerves  extending  to  every  member^ 
diffuses  life  and  energy  through  the  whole  body ;   so  the  Holy 


106  PART  III.     Cir.   XVI.  — FAITH. 

Spirit,  given  without  measure  to  Christ  the  head  of  the  Church, 
which  is  his  body,  diffuses  hfe  and  strength  to  every  member. 
Hence,  according  to  Scripture,  Christ's  dwelhng  in  us  is  explained 
as  the  Spirit's  dwelhng  in  us.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is  the 
indwelling  of  Christ.  If  God  be  in  you ;  if  Christ  be  in  you  ;  if 
the  Spirit  be  in  you,  —  all  mean  the  same  thing.  See  Romans 
viii.  9-11. 

To  explain  this  vital  and  mystical  miion  between  Christ  and 
his  people  as  a  mere  union  of  thought  and  feeling,  is  utterly  in- 
admissible. (1.)  In  the  first  place,  it  is  contrary  to  the  plain 
meaning  of  his  words.  No  one  ever  speaks  of  Plato's  dwelling  in 
men ;  of  his  being  their  life,  so  that  without  him  they  can  do  noth- 
ing ;  and  much  less,  so  that  holiness,  happiness,  and  eternal  life 
depend  upon  that  union.  (2.)  Such  interpretation  supposes  that 
our  relation  to  Christ  is  analogous  to  the  relation  of  one  man  to 
another.  Whereas  it  is  a  relation  between  men  and  a  divine  per- 
son, who  has  life  in  Himself,  and  gives  hfe  to  as  many  as  He 
wills.  (3.)  It  ignores  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  his  dwelling  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
(4.)  It  overlooks  the  supernatural  character  of  Christianity,  and 
would  reduce  it  to  a  mere  philosophical  and  ethical  system. 

Peace  as  the  Fruit  of  Faith. 

The  fourth  effect  of  faith  is  peace.  "  Being  justified  by 
faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
(Rom.  V.  1.)  Peace  arises  from  a  sense  of  reconciliation.  God 
promises  to  pardon,  to  receive  into  his  favour,  and  finally  to  save 
all  who  believe  the  record  which  He  has  given  of  his  Son.  To 
believe,  is  therefore  to  believe  this  promise ;  and  to  appropriate 
this  promise  to  ourselves  is  to  believe  that  God  is  reconciled  to 
us.  This  faith  may  be  weak  or  strong.  And  the  peace  which 
flows  from  it  may  be  tremulous  and  intermitting,  or  it  may  be 
constant  and  assured. 

Assurance. 

To  make  assurance  of  personal  salvation  essential  to  faithj  is 
contrary  to  Scripture  and  to  the  experience  of  God's  people.  The 
Bible  speaks  of  a  weak  faith.  It  abounds  with  consolations  in- 
tended for  the  doubting  and  the  desponding.  God  accepts  those 
who  can  only  say,  "  Lord,  I  believe  ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief." 
Those  who  make  assurance  the  essence  of  faith,  generally  reduce 
faith  to  a  mere  intellectual  assent.    They  are  often  censorious,  re 


§8.]  ITS  EFFECTS.  107 

fusing  to  recognize  as  brethren  those  who  do  not  agree  witli  them ; 
and  sometimes  they  are  antinomian. 

At  the  same  time,  Scripture  and  experience  teach  that  assur- 
ance is  not  only  attainable,  but  a  privilege  and  a  duty.  There 
may  indeed  be  assurance,  where  there  is  no  true  faith  at  all ;  but 
where  there  is  true  faith,  the  want  of  assurance  is  to  be  referred 
either  to  the  weakness  of  faith,  or  to  erroneous  views  of  the  plan 
of  salvation.  Many  sincere  believers  are  too  introspective.  They 
look  too  exclusively  Avithin,  so  that  their  hope  is  graduated  by  the 
degree  of  evidence  of  regeneration  which  they  find  in  their  own 
experience.  This,  except  in  rare  cases,  can  never  lead  to  the  as- 
surance of  hope.  We  may  examine  our  hearts  mth  all  the  micro- 
sco]3ic  care  prescribed  by  President  Edwards  in  his  work  on  "  The 
Religious  Affections,"  and  never  be  satisfied  that  we  have  elimi- 
nated every  ground  of  misgiving  and  doubt.  The  grounds  of 
assurance  are  not  so  much  mthin,  as  mthout  us.  They  are,  ac- 
cording to  Scripture,  (1.)  The  universal  and  unconditional  prom- 
ise of  God  that  those  who  come  to  Him  in  Christ,  He  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out ;  that  whosoever  will,  may  take  of  the  water  of  hfe 
without  money  and  without  price.  We  are  bound  to  be  assured 
that  God  is  faithful  and  Avill  certainly  save  those  who  believe. 
(2.)  The  infinite,  immutable,  and  gratuitous  love  of  God.  In  the 
first  ten  verses  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  that  epistle  from  the  thirty-first 
verse  to  the  end,  the  Apostle  dwells  on  these  characteristics  of 
the  love  of  God,  as  affording  an  immovable  foundation  of  the 
believer's  hope.  (3.)  The  infinite  merit  of  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  and  the  prevalence  of  his  continued  intercession.  Paul, 
in  Romans  viii.  34,  especially  emphasizes  these  points.  (4.)  The 
covenant  of  redemption  in  which  it  is  promised  that  all  given  by 
the  Father  to  the  Son,  shall  come  to  Him,  and  that  none  of  them 
shall  be  lost.  (5.)  From  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  Paul  says, 
"  We  ....  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,"  because  the 
love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
given  unto  us.  That  is,  the  Holy  Ghost  assures  us  that  we  are 
the  objects  of  that  love  which  he  goes  on  to  describe  as  infinite, 
immutable,  and  gratuitous.  (Rom.  v.  3-5.)  And  again,  "  The 
Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God."  If,  therefore,  any  true  believer  lacks  the  assurance 
of  faith,  the  fault  is  in  liimself  and  not  in  the  plan  of  salvation, 
or  in  the  promises  of  God. 


108  PART   ITI.     Ch.   XVI.  — faith. 

Sanctifieation  a  Fruit  of  Faith. 

Tlie  fifth  effect  of  faith  is  sanctifieation.  "  Which  are  sancti- 
fied," says  our  Lord  "by  faith  that  is  in  me."  Although  in  tliis 
Terse  (Acts  xxvi.  18),  the  words  "  by  faith  "  do  not  quaUfy  the 
preceding  clause,  "  are  sanctified,"  alone,  but  are  to  be  referred 
to  all  the  preceding  particulars,  —  illumination,  dehverance  from 
Satan,  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  eternal  inheritance,  —  yet  the 
immediate  antecedent  is  not  to  be  omitted.  We  are  sanctified  by 
faith  as  is  elsewhere  clearly  taught.  "  Faith  which  worketh  by 
love  and  purifies  the  heart."     (Gal.  v.  6,  and  Acts  xv.  9.) 

The  relation  of  faith  to  sanctifieation  is  thus  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures,  — 

1.  We  are  justified  by  faith.  So  long  as  we  are  under  the  law, 
we  are  under  the  curse,  and  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.  There 
is,  and  can  be  no  love  to  God,  and  no  holy  living  until  we  are  de- 
livered from  his  wrath  due  to  us  for  sin.  We  are  freed  from  the 
laAV,  delivered  from  its  condemnation,  by  the  body  or  death  of 
Christ.  It  is  by  faith  in  Him  as  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness, that  we  personally  are  freed  from  condemnation  and  restored 
to  the  favour  of  God.  See  all  this  clearly  taught  in  Romans  vi., 
and  in  the  first  six  verses  of  the  seventh  chapter.  It  is  thus  by 
faith  we  pass  from  judicial  death  to  judicial  life,  or  justification. 
This  is  the  first  and  indispensable  step  of  sanctifieation  so  far  as 
it  reveals  itself  in  the  consciousness  of  the  believer. 

2.  It  is  by  faith  that  we  receive  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit. 
Christ  (or  the  Spirit  of  Christ)  dwells  in  our  hearts  by  faith. 
Faith  is  the  indispensable  condition  (so  far  as  adults  are  con- 
cerned) of  this  indwelhng  of  the  Spirit.  And  the  indwelHng  of 
the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life.  Faith  is  indeed  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  must  pre- 
cede the  exercise  of  faith.  It  is  nevertheless  true  that  faith  is  the 
condition  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  and  consequently  of 
spiritual  life.  Life  must  precede  breathing,  and  yet  breathing  is 
the  necessary  condition  of  Hving. 

3.  Faith  is  not  only  the  condition  of  the  Spirit's  dwelHng  in  us 
as  the  source  of  spiritual  life,  but  we  live  by  faith.  That  is,  the 
continuance  and  exercise  of  spiritual  life  involve  and  suppose  the 
constant  exercise  of  faith.  We  Uve  by  exercising  faith  in  God, 
in  liis  attributes,  in  his  providence,  in  his  promises,  and  in  all  the 
truths  wJiich  He  has  revealed.  Especially  is  this  life  sustained 
by  those  exercises  of  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object ;  liis  divint 


§8-] 


ITS   EFFECTS.  109 


and  mysteriously  constituted  person,  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesL. ; 
his  finished  work  for  our  redemption ;  his  constant  intercession  ; 
his  intimate  rehxtion  to  us  not  only  as  our  prophet,  priest,  and 
king,  but  as  our  living  head  in  whom  our  life  is  hid  in  God,  and 
from  whom  it  flows  into  our  souls.  We  are  thus  sanctified  by 
faith,  because  it  is  through  faith  that  all  the  religious  affections 
and  all  the  activities  of  spiritual  Hfe  are  called  into  exercise. 

4.  We  are  sanctified  by  faith,  as  it  is  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  and  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen.  "  The  things  of 
God,"  the  truths  which  He  has  revealed  concerning  the  spiritual 
and  eternal  world  exist  for  us  wliile  in  this  world,  only  as  the  ob- 
jects-of  faith.  But  faith  is  to  the  soul  what  the  eye  is  to  the  body. 
It  enables  us  to  see  the  things  unseen  and  eternal.  It  gives  them 
substance,  reality,  and  therefore  power,  —  power  in  some  httle 
measure  in  proportion  to  their  value.  Thus  the  things  seen  and 
temporal  lose  their  dominant  power  over  the  soul.  They  are  not 
worthy  to  be  compared  mth  the  things  which  God  has  prepared 
for  them  that  love  Him.  The  believer,  —  the  ideal,  and  at  times 
the  actual  believer,  as  we  learn  from  Scripture  and  from  history, 
is  raised  above  the  things  of  time  and  sense,  overcomes  the  world, 
and  becomes  heavenly  minded.  He  lives  in  heaven,  breathes  its 
atmosphere,  is  pervaded  by  its  spirit,  and  has  a  prelibation  of  its 
joys.  This  renders  him  pure,  spiritual,  humble,  self-denying, 
laborious,  meek,  gentle,  forgiving,  as  well  as  firm  and  courageous. 
The  whole  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
is  devoted  to  the  illustration  of  the  power  of  faith  especially  in 
this  aspect.  The  Apostle  shows  that  in  times  past,  even  under  the 
dim  light  of  the  former  dispensation,  it  enabled  Noah  to  stand 
alone  against  the  world,  Abraham  to  offer  up  his  only  son,  Moses 
to  prefer  the  reproach  of  Christ  to  the  treasures  of  Egypt ;  that 
others  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness, 
stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire  ;  that 
others  were  by  faith  made'  strong  out  of  weakness,  waxed  valiant 
in  fight ;  that  others  submitted  to  the  trial  of  cruel  mockings  and 
scourgings  ;  that  others  by  faith  endured  to  be  stoned,  sawn  asun- 
der, or  slain  with  the  sword ;  and  that  yet  others  through  faith 
consented  to  wander  about  in  sheepskins  and  goatskins,  destitute, 
afflicted,  and  tormented.  All  these,  we  are  told,  through  faith 
obtained  a  good  report. 

5.  Faith  sanctifies  because  it  is  the  necessary  condition  of  the 
efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace.  It  is  through  the  Word,  sacra- 
ments, and  prayer,  that  God  communicates  coastant  supphes  of 


110  PART   m.     Cu.   XYI.  — FAITH. 

grace.  Tliey  are  the  means  of  calling  the  activities  of  spiritual 
life  into  exercise.  But  these  means  of  grace  are  inoperative  un- 
less they  are  received  and  used  by  faith.  Faith  does  not,  indeed, 
give  them  their  power,  but  it  is  the  condition  on  which  the  Spirit 
of  God  renders  them  efficacious. 

That  ecood  works  are  the  certain  effects  of  faith  is  included  in 
the  doctrine  that  we  are  sanctified  by  faith.  For  it  is  impossible 
that  there  should  be  inward  holiness,  love,  spirituality,  brotherly 
kindness,  and  zeal,  without  an  external  manifestation  of  these 
graces  in  the  whole  outward  life.  Faith,  therefore,  without  works, 
is  dead.  We  are  saved  by  faith.  But  salvation  includes  deliver- 
ance from  sin.  If,  therefore,  our  faitli  does  not  deliver  us  from 
sin,  it  does  not  save  us.  Antinomianism  involves  a  contradiction 
in  terms. 

Certainty  of  Salvation. 

A  sixth  effect  attributed  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures  is  security, 
or,  certainty  of  salvation.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  (John  iii.  16.)  "  He  that 
heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  ever- 
lasting life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation ;  but  is  passed 
from  death  unto  life."  (John  v.  24.)  "  I  am  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he 
shall  live  forever."  (John  vi.  51.)  "  All  that  the  Father  giveth 
me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 

wise  cast  out And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 

that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may 
liave  everlasting  life :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." 
(John  vi.  37,  40.)  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them, 
and  they  follow  me :  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life  ;  and  they 
shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my 
hand."     (John  x.  27,  28.) 

The  Eighth  Chapter  of  Romans. 

The  whole  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
is  designed  to  prove  the  certain  salvation  of  all  who  believe.  The 
proposition  to  be  established  is,  that  there  is  "no  condemnation  to 
them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  That  is,  they  can  never  per- 
ish ;  they  can  never  be  so  separated  from  Christ  as  to  come  into 
condemnation.  The  Apostle's  first  argument  to  estabhsh  that 
proposition,  is,  that  believers  are  delivered  from  the  law  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ.     The  behever,  therefore,  is  not  under  the  law 


§8.]  ITS   EFFECTS.  Ill 

which  condemns,  as  Paul  had  before  said  (Rom.  vi.  14),  "  Ye 
are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace."  But  if  not  under  the 
law  he  cannot  be  condemned.  The  law  has  had  its  course,  and 
found  full  satisfaction  in  the  work  of  Christ,  who  is  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth.  He  renders 
every  one  righteous,  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  who  believes  on  Him. 
This  is  the  first  reason  which  the  Apostle  gives  why  those  who 
are  in  Christ  shall  never  be  condemned. 

His  second  argument  is  that  they  have  already  within  them  the 
j)rinciple  of  eternal  life.  That  pi'inciple  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
"  the  life-giving  "  as  He  was  designated  by  the  ancient  Church. 
To  be  carnally  minded  is  death.  To  be  spiritually  minded  is  life 
and  peace.  Sin  is  death  ;  holiness  is  life.  It  is  a  contradiction 
to  say  that  those  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  life  dwells,  shoiild  die. 
And,  therefore,  the  Apostle  says.  Although  the  body  dies,  the 
soul  lives.  And  if  the  Spirit  of  Him  who  raised  up  Jesus  from 
the  dead  dwell  in  you.  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead 
shall  also  quicken  even  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  you.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  therefore,  secures 
not  only  the  life  of  the  soul,  but  also  the  ultimate  and  glorious 
life  of  the  body. 

The  third  argument  for  the  security  of  believers,  is,  that  they 
are  the  sons  of  God.  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
they  are  the  sons  of  God.  That  is,  they  are  partakers  of  his  na- 
ture, the  special  objects  of  his  love,  and  entitled  to  the  inheritance 
which  He  gives.  If  sons  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs 
with  Christ.  According  to  the  Apostle's  mode  of  tliinking,  that 
any  of  the  sons  of  God  should  perish,  is  impossible.  If  sons  they 
shall  certainly  be  saved. 

The  fourth  argument  is  from  the  purpose  of  God.  Those 
whom  He  has  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his 
Son,  them  He  calls  to  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance  ;  and 
whom  He  thus  calls  He  justifies.  He  provides  for  them  and  im- 
putes to  them  a  righteousness  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  the 
law,  and  which  entitles  tliem  in  Christ  and  for  his  sake  to  eternal 
life  ;  and  those  whom  He  justifies  He  glorifies.  There  is  no  flaw 
in  this  chain.  If  men  were  predestinated  to  eternal  hfe  on  the 
ground  of  their  repenting  and  believing  through  their  own 
strength,  or  through  a  cooperation  \vith  the  grace  of  God  which 
others  fail  to  exercise,  then  their  continuance  in  a  state  of  grace 
might  be  dependent  on  themselves.  But  if  faith  and  repentance 
are  tlie  gifts  of  God,  the  results  of  liis  effectual  vocation,  then  be- 


112  PART  III.     Cn.  XVI. —  FAITH. 

stowing  those  gifts  is  a  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  God  to  save 
those  to  whom  they  are  given.  It  is  an  evidence  that  God  has 
predestinated  them  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  i.  e., 
to  be  hke  Him  in  character,  destiny,  and  glory,  and  that  He  will 
infallibly  carry  out  his  purpose.  No  one  can  pluck  them  out  of 
his  hands. 

Paul's  fifth  argument  is  from  the  love  of  God.  As  stated 
above,^  the  Apostle  argues  from  the  greatness,  the  freeness,  and 
the  immutabihty  of  that  love  that  its  objects  never  can  be  lost. 
"  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  dehvered  him  up  for  us 
all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things."  If 
He  has  done  the  greater,  will  He  not  do  the  less  ?  If  he  gave 
even  his  own  Son,  will  He  not  give  us  faith  to  receive  and  con- 
stancy to  persevere  even  unto  the  end  ?  A  love  so  great  as  the 
love  of  God  to  his  people  cannot  fail  of  its  object.  This  love  is 
also  gratuitous.  It  is  not  founded  on  the  attractiveness  of  its  ob- 
jects. He  loved  us  "  while  we  were  yet  sinners;"  "when  we 
were  enemies."  "  Much  more,  then,  being  now  justified  by  his 
blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  Him.  For  if,  when 
we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life." 
God's  love  in  this  aspect  is  compared  to  parental  love.  A  mother 
does  not  love  her  child  because  it  is  lovely.  Her  love  leads  her  to 
do  all  she  can  to  render  it  attractive  and  to  keep  it  so.  So  the 
love  of  God,  being  in  like  manner  mysterious,  unaccountable  by 
anything  in  its  objects,  secures  his  adorning  his  children  \vith  the 
graces  of  his  Spirit,  and  arraying  them  in  all  the  beauty  of  hoK- 
ness.  It  is  only  the  lamentable  mistake  that  God  loves  us  for  our 
goodness,  that  can  lead  any  one  to  suppose  that  his  love  is  de- 
pendent on  our  seli-sustained  attractiveness,  when  we  should  look 
to  his  fatherly  love  as  the  source  of  all  goodness,  and  tlie  ground 
of  the  assurance  that  He  Avill  not  allow  Satan  or  our  o^vn  evil 
hearts  to  destroy  the  lineaments  of  his  likeness  which  He  has  im- 
pressed upon  our  souls.  Having  loved  his  own.  He  loves  them  to 
the  end.  And  Christ  prays  for  them  that  their  faith  may  not 
fail. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  what  the  Apostle  argues  to  prove 
is  not  merely  the  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  those  that  believe  ; 
but  their  certain  perseverance  in  holiness.  Salvation  in  sinj^c- 
cording  to  Paul's  system,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  This  per- 
severance in  hoUness  is  secured  partly^y  the  inward  secret  influ- 

1  Page  107. 


§8.]  ITS  EFFECTS.  113 

ence  of  the  Spirit,  and  partly  by  all  the  means  adapted  to  secure  ^ 
that  end  —  instructions,  admonitions,  exhortations,  warnings,  the 
means  of  grace,  and  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.    Having, 
through  love,  determined  on  the  end.  He  has  determined  on  the 
means  for  its  accomplishment. 

The  sixth  argument  of  the  Apostle  is  that,  as  the  love  of  God 
is  infinitely  great  and  altogether  gratuitous,  it  is  also  immutable, 
and,  therefore,  believers  shall  certainly  be  saved.  Hence  the 
conclusion,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  an- 1 
gels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things 
to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be 
able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Apostle  does  not  rest  the  perseverance 
of  the  saints  on  the  indestructible  nature  of  faith,  or  on  the  im- 
perishable nature  of  the  principle  of  grace  in  the  heart,  or  on 
the  constancy  of  the  believer's  will,  but  solely  on  what  is  out  of 
ourselves.  Perseverance,  he  teaches  us,  is  due  to  the  purpose  of 
God,^to  the  work  of  Christ,  to  the  indwelhng  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  to  the  primal  source  of  all,  the  infinite,  mysterious,  and  im- 
mutable love  of  God.  We^do  not  keep  ourselves  ;  we  are  kept 
by  the  power  of  God,  through  faith  unto  salvation.  (l_Peter 
L5.) 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

§  1.  Symholical  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

Justification  is  defined  in  the  Westminster  Catecliism,  "•  An 
act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  He  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone." 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  How 
dost  thou  become  righteous  before  God  ?  "  answers,  "  Sola  fide  in 
Jesum  Christum,  adeo  ut  licet  mea  me  conscientia  accuset,  quod 
adversus  omnia  mandata  Dei  graviter  peccaverim,  nee  ullum 
eorum  servaverim,  adlitec  etiamnum  ad  onine  malum  propensus 
sini,  niliilominus  tamen  (modo  hrec  beneficia  vera  animi  fiducia 
amplectar),  sine  ullo  meo  merito,  ex  mera  Dei  misericordia, 
mihi  perfecta  satisfactio,  justitia,  et  sanctitas  Christi,  imputetur 
ac  donetur  ;  perinde  ac  si  nee  ullum  ipse  peccatum  admisissem, 
nee  ulla  mihi  labes  inhsereret ;  imo  vero  quasi  cam  obedientiam, 
quam  pro  me  Christus  prasstitit,  ipse  perfecte  pricstitissem."  And 
in  answer  to  the  question.  Why  faith  alone  justifies  ?  it  says. 
"  Non  quod  dignitate  mess  fidei  Deo  placeam,  sed  quod  sola  satis- 
factio, justitia  ac  sanctitas  Christi,  mea  justitia  sit  coram  Deo. 
Ego  vero  eam  non  alia  ratione,  quam  fide  amplecti,  et  mihi  appli- 
care  queam." 

The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,^  says  "  Justificare  significat 
Apostolp  in  disputatione  de  justificatione,  peccata  remittere,  a 
culpa  et  poena  absolvere,  in  gi-atiam  recipere,  et  justum  pronun- 
ciare.  Etenim  ad  Romanes  dicit  apostolus,  '  Deus  est,  qui  justi- 
ficat,  quis  ille,   qui  condemnet  ?  '  opponuntur  justificare  et  con- 

demnare Etenim  Christus  peccata  mundi  in  se  recepit  et 

sustuht,  divinteque  justitia  satisfecit.  Deus  ergo  propter  solum 
Christum  passum  et  resuscitatum,  propitius  est  peccatis  nostris, 
nee  ilia  nobis  imputat,  imputat  autem  justitiam  Christi  pro  nos- 
tra :  ita  ut  jam  simus  non  solum  mundati  a  peccatis  et  purgati, 
vel  sancti,  sed  etiam  donati  justitia  Christi,  adeoque  absoluti  a 

1  Chapter  xv. 


§  1.]        SYMBOLICAL   STATEMENT   OF  THE   DOCTRINE.        115 

peccatis,  morte  vel  condemnatione,  justi  denique  ac  hferedes  vitgB 
SBternaj.  Proprie  ergo  loqiiendo,  Deiis  solus  nos  jiistificat,  et  dun- 
taxat  propter  Cliristuin  justificat,  iioii  imputans  nobis  peccata, 
sed  imputans  ejus  nobis  justitiam."  ^ 

These  are  the  most  generally  received  and  authoritative  stand- 
ards of  the  Reformed  Churches,  with  which  all  other  Reformed 
symbols  agree.  The  Lutheran  confessions  teach  precisely  the 
same  doctrine  on  this  subject.^     "  Unanimi  consensu,  docemus  et 

confitemur quod  homo  peccator  coram  Deo  justificetur,  hoc 

est,  absolvatur  ab  omnibus  suis  peccatis  et  a  judicio  justissim^ 
condemnationis,  et  adoptetirr  in  numerum  filiorum  Dei  atque 
hasres  a3ternEe  vitoe  scribatur,  sine  ullis  nostris  meritis,  aut  dignitate, 
et  absque  ullis  prjecedentibus,  prsesentibus,  aut  sequentibus  nostris 
operibus,  ex  mera  gratia,  tantummodo  propter  unicum  meritum, 
perfectissimam  obedientiam,  passionem  acerbissimam,  mortem  et 
resurrectionem  Domini  nostri,  Jesu  Christi,  cujus  obedientia  nobis 
ad  justitiam  imputatur."  ^ 

Again,  "  Credimus,  docemus,  et  confitemur,  hoc  ipsum  nostram 
esse  coram  Deo  justitiam,  quod  Dominus  nobis  peccata  remittit, 
ex  mera  gratia,  absque  ullo  respectu  prsecedentium,  pr^esentium, 
aut  consequentium  nostrorum  operum,  dignitatis,  aut  meriti. 
lUe  enim  donat  atque  imputat  nobis  justitiam  obedientioe 
Christi ;  propter  eam  justitiam  a  Deo  in  gratiam  recipimur  et 
justi  reputamur."  ^  "  Justificari  significat  hie  non  ex  impio 
justum  effici,  sed  usu  forensi  justum  pronuntiari."  And  "  Justi- 
ficare  hoc  loco  (Rom.  v.  1.)  forensi  consuetudine  significat 
reum  absolvere  et  pronuntiare  justum,  sed  propter  alienam  justi- 
tiam, videlicet  Christi,  qute  aliena  justitia  communicatur  nobis 
per  fidem."  ^  So  also  "  Vocabulum  justificationis  in  hoc  negotio 
significat  justum  pronuntiare,  a  peccatis  et  oeternis  peccatorum 
suppliciis  absolvere,  propter  justitiam  Christi,  qivjn  a  Deo  fidei 
imputatur."  ^ 

Hase,'  concisely  states  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  in 
these  words  :  "  Justificatio  est  actus  forensis,  quo  Deus,  sola  gra- 
tia ductus,  peccatori,  propter  Christi  meritum  fide  apprehensum, 
justitiam  Christi  imputat,  peccata  remittit,  eumque  sibi  reconcil- 
iat." 

1  See  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confesslonum,  Leipzig,  1840. 

2  The  main  passages  are  Aurjishurg  Confession,  part  i.,  article  iv.  ;  the  Apology  for  that 
Confession,  article  iii.;  and  tlie  Form  oj'  Concord,  article  iii. 

8  Form  of  Concord,  iii.  9. 

*  Ibid.  Epitome,  iii.  4. 

5  Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  ill.  131,  184. 

0  Form  of  Concord  iii.  17.     See  Hasc,  Llbrl  SymbuUcl,  3d  edit.,  Leipzig,  1836. 

t  Hutterus  Redivivus,  §  109,  6th  edit.  Leipzig,  1845,  p.  274. 


116  PART  m.   Ch.  XVII.  —  justification. 

The  "  Form  of  Concord  "  says,  "  Hie  articulus,  cle  justitia  fidei, 
prgecipiius  est  (ut  Apologia  loquitur)  in  tota  doctrina  Christiana, 
sine  quo  conscientise  perturbatse  nullam  veram  et  firmam  consola- 
tionem  habere,  aut  divitias  gratia^  Christi  recte  agnoscere  possunt. 
Id  D.  Lutherus  suo  etiani  testimonio  confirmavit,  cum  inquit:  Si 
unicus  his  articulus  sincerus  permanserit,  etiam  Christiana  Eccle- 
sia  sincera,  concors  et  sine  omnibus  sectis  permanet :  sin  vero  cor- 
rumpitur,  impossibile  est,  ut  uni  errori  aut  fanatico  spiritui  recte 
obviam  iri  possit."  ^  The  Lutheran  theologians,  therefore,  speak 
of  it  as  the  "  d/cpo7roAts  totius  Christianse  religionis,  ac  nexus,  quo 
omnia  corporis  doctrinse  Christianas  membra  continentur,  quoque 
rupto  solvuntur."  ^ 

President  Edwards. 

This  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  has  retained 
symbolical  authority  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches,  to 
the  present  day.  President  Edwards,  who  is  regarded  as  having 
initiated  certain  departures  from  some  points  of  the  Reformed 
faith,  was  firm  in  his  adherence  to  this  view  of  justification,  which 
he  held  to  be  of  vital  importance.  In  his  discourse  on  "  Justifi- 
cation by  Faith  alone,"  he  thus  defines  justification :  "  A  person 
is  said  to  be  justified  when  he  is  approved  of  God  as  free  from 
the  guilt  of  sin  and  its  deserved  punishment ;  and  as  having  that 
righteousness  belonging  to  him  that  entitles  to  the  reward 
of  life.  That  we  should  take  the  word  in  such  a  sense  and  un- 
derstand it  as  the  judge's  accepting  a  person  as  having  both  a 
negative  and  positive  righteousness  belonging  to  him,  and  looking 
on  liim  therefore  as  not  only  quit  or  free  from  any  obligation  to 
punishment,  but  also  as  just  and  righteous,  and  so  entitled  to  a 
positive  reward,  is  not  only  most  agreeable  to  the  etymology  and 
natural  import  of  the  word,  which  signifies  to  make  righteous,  or 
to  pass  one  for  righteous  in  judgment,  but  also  manifestly  agree- 
able to  the  force  of  the  word  as  used  in  ScrijDture."  He  then 
shows  how  it  is,  or  why  faith  alone  justifies.  It  is  not  on  ac- 
count of  any  virtue  or  goodness  in  faith,  but  as  it  unites  us  to. 
Christ,  and  involves  the  acceptance  of  Him  as  our  righteousness. 
Thus  it  is  we  are  justified  "  by  faith  alone,  without  any  mamier 
of  \artue  or  goodness  of  our  own." 

The  ground  of  justification  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  im- 
puted to  the  believer.  "By  that  righteousness  being  imputed  to 
us,"  says  Edwards,  "  is  meant  no  other  than  this,  that  that  right- 

1  III.  6.  -  Quenstedt. 


§  1.]        SYMBOLICAL   STATEMENT   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.        117 

eousness  of  Christ  is  accepted  for  us,  and  admitted  instead  of 
that  perfect  inherent  righteousness  that  ought  to  be  in  ourselves : 
Christ's  jierfect  obedience  shall  be  reckoned  to  our  account,  so 
that  we  shall  have  the  benefit  of  it,  as  though  we  had  performed 
it    ourselves  :  and  so   we  suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal  life  is 

given  us  as  the  reward  of  this  righteousness The  opposers 

of  this  doctrine  suppose  that  there  is  an  absurdity  in  it :  they  say 
that  to  suppose  that  God  imputes  Christ's  obedience  to  us,  is  to 
suppose  that  God  is  mistaken,  and  thinks  that  we  performed  that 
obedience  that  Christ  performed.  But  why  cannot  that  righteous- 
ness be  reckoned  to  our  account,  and  be  accepted  for  us,  without 
any  such  absurdity  ?  Why  is  there  any  more  absurdity  in  it, 
than  in  a  merchant's  transferring  debt  or  credit  from  one  man's 
account  to  anotlier,  when  one  man  pays  a  price  for  another,  so 
that  it  shall  be  accepted,  as  if  that  other  had  paid  it  ?  Why  is 
there  any  more  absurdity  in  supposing  that  Christ's  obedience  is 
imputed  to  us,  than  that  his  satisfaction  is  imputed  ?  If  Christ 
has  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  and  in  our  stead,  then 
it  will  follow,  that  his  suffering  that  penalty  is  imputed  to  us, 
t.  g.,  that  it  is  accepted  for  us,  and  in  our  stead,  and  is  reckoned 
to  our  account,  as  though  we  had  suffered  it.  But  why  may  not 
his  obeying  the  law  of  God  be  as  rationally  reckoned  to  our  ac- 
count, as  his  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law  ?  "  ^ 

Points  included  in  the  above  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

According  to  the  above  statements,  justification  is,  — 

1.  An  act,  and  not,  as  sanctification,  a  continued  and  pro- 
gressive work. 

2.  It  is  an  act  of  grace  to  the  sinner.  In  himself  he  deserves 
condemnation  when  God  justifies  him. 

3.  As  to  the  nature  of  the  act,  it  is,  in  the  first  place,  not  an 
efficient  act,  or  an  act  of  power.  It  does  not  produce  any  sub- 
jective change  in  the  person  justified.  It  does  not  effect  a  change 
of  character,  making  those  good  who  were  bad,  those  holy  who 
were  unlioly.  That  is  done  in  regeneration  and  sanctification. 
In  the  second  j^lace,  it  is .  not  a  mere  executive  act,  as  when  a 
sovereign  pardons  a  criminal,  and  thereby  restores  him  to  his  civil 
rights,  or  to  his  former  status  in  the  commonwealth.  In  the 
third  place,  it  is  a  forensic,  or  judicial  act,  the  act  of  a  judge,  not 
of  a  sovereign.  That  is,  in  the  case  of  the  sinner,  or,  inforo  Dei, 
it  is  an  act  of  God  not  in  his  character  of  sovereign,  but  in  his 

1   Works  of  President  Edwards,  New  York,  1808,  vol.  iv.  pp.  G6,  91,  92. 


118  PART  in.    Ch.  xvii.  —  justification. 

character  of  judge.  It  is  a  declarative  act  in  wliicli  God  pro- 
nounces the  sinner  just  or  righteous,  that  is,  declares  that  the 
chiinis  of  justice,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  are  satisfied,  so  that 
he  cannot  be  justly  condemned,  but  is  in  justice  entitled  to  the 
reward  promised  or  due  to  perfect  righteousness, 

4.  The  meritorious  ground  of  justification  is  not  faith  ;  we  are 
not  justified  on  account  of  our  faith,  considered  as  a  virtuous  or 
holy  act  or  state  of  mind.  Nor  are  our  works  of  any  kind  the 
ground  of  justification.  Nothing  done  by  us  or  wrought  in  us 
satisfies  the  demands  of  justice,  or  can  be  the  ground  or  reason  of 
the  declaration  that  justice  as  far  as  it  concerns  us  is  satisfied. 
The  ground  of  justification  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  active 
and  passive,  i.  e.,  including  his  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  as  a 
covenant,  and  his  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead 
and  on  our  behalf. 

5.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  in  justification  imputed  to  the 
behever.  That  is,  is  set  to  his  account,  so  that  he  is  entitled  to 
plead  it  at  the  bar  of  God,  as  though  it  were  personally  and  in- 
herently his  own. 

6.  Faith  is  the  condition  of  justification.  That  is,  so  far  as 
adults  are  concerned,  God  does  not  impute  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  the  sinner,  until  and  unless,  he  (through  grace),  receives 
and  rests  on  Christ  alone  for  his  salvation. 

That  such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
churches  on  this  important  doctrine,  cannot  be  disputed.  The 
statements  of  the  standards  of  those  churches  are  so  numerous, 
explicit,  and  discriminating  as  to  preclude  all  reasonable  doubt  on 
this  subject.  That  such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God  ap- 
pears from  the  following  considerations. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  discuss  all  the  points  above  specified 
separately,  as  some  of  them  are  necessarily  included  in  others. 
The  follomng  propositions  include  all  the  essential  points  of  the 
doctrine. 

§  2.  Justification  is  a  Forensic  Act.     . 

By  this  the  Reformers  intended,  in  the  first  place,  to  deny  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  subjective  justification.  That  is,  that  justifi- 
cation consists  in  an  act  or  agency  of  God  making  the  sinner  sub- 
jectively holy.  Romanists  confound  or  unite  justification  and 
sanctification.  They  define  justification  as  "  the  remission  of  sin 
and  infusion  of  new  habits  of  grace."  By  remission  of  sin  they 
mean  not  simply  pardon,  but  the  removal  of  everything  of  the  na- 
ture of  sin  from  the  soul.     Justification,  therefore,  with  them,  ia 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION    A   FORENSIC   ACT.  119 

purely  subjective,  consisting  in  the  destruction  of  sin  and  tlie  infu- 
sion of  holiness.  In  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  the  Reformers 
maintained  that  by  justification  the  Scriptures  mean  sometliing 
different  from  sanctification.  That  the  two  gifts,  although  insep- 
arable, are  distinct,  and  that  justification,  instead  of  being  an  effi- 
cient act  changing  the  inward  character  of  the  sinner,  is  a  declar- 
ative act,  announcing  and  determining  liis  relation  to  the  law  and 
justice  of  God. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Symbols  of  tlie  Reformation  no  less  ex- 
plicitly teach  that  justification  is  not  simply  pardon  and  restora- 
tion. It  includes  pardon,  but  it  also  includes  a  declaration  that 
the  believer  is  just  or  righteous  in  the  sight  of  the  law.  He  has 
a  right  to  plead  a  righteousness  Avliich  completely  satisfies  its  de- 
mands. 

And,  therefore,  in  the  third  place,  affirmatively,  those  Symbols 
teach  that  justification  is  a  judicial  or  forensic  act,  i.  e.,  an  act  of 
God  as  judge  proceeding  according  to  law,  declaring  that  the  sin- 
ner is  just,  i.  e.,  that  the  law  no  longer  condemns  him,  but  acquits 
and  pronounces  him  to  be  entitled  to  eternal  life. 

Here,  as  so  often  in  other  cases,  the  ambiguity  of  words  is  apt 
to  create  embarrassment.  The  Greek  word  StKato?,  and  the  Eng- 
lish word  righteous^  have  two  distinct  senses.  They  sometimes 
express  moral  character.  When  we  say  that  God  is  righteous, 
we  mean  that  He  is  right.  He  is  free  from  any  moral  imperfec- 
tion. So  when  we  say  that  a  man  is  righteous,  we  generally 
mean  that  he  is  upright  and  honest ;  that  he  is  and  does  what  he 
ought  to  be  and  do.  In  this  sense  the  word  expresses  the  rela- 
tion which  a  man  sustains  to  the  rule  of  moral  conduct.  At  other 
times,  however,  these  words  express,  not  moral  character,  but  the 
relation  which  a  man  sustains  to  justice.  In  this  sense  a  man  is 
just  mth  regard  to  whom  justice  is  satisfied  ;  or,  against  whom 
justice  has  no  demands.  The  lexicons,  therefore,  tell  us  that 
StK-ato?  sometimes  means,  leges  observans  ;  at  others  insons,  culpa 
vacans  (free  from  guilt  or  obligation  to  punishment)  — judicio 
Dei  insons.  Pilate  (Matt,  xxvii.  24)  said,  "  I  am  innocent  of 
the  blood  of  this  just  person  ; "  i.  e.,  of  this  person  who  is  free 
from  guilt ;  free  from  anything  which  justifies  his  condemnation 
to  death.  "  Christ,  also,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  hath  once  suffered 
for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust ;  "  the  innocent  for  the  guilty. 
See  Romans  ii.  13  ;  v.  19.  "  As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous."    "  As  the  predicate  oi  judicandus  in  his  relation  to  the 


120  PART  in.     Cn.   XVn.  — JUSTIFICATION. 

judge,  '  righteousness '  expresses,  not  a  positive  virtue,  but  a  judi- 
cial negative  freedom  from  reatus.  In  the  presence  of  his  judge, 
he  is  ^""71*  Avho  stands  free  from  guilt  and  desert  of  punishment 
(straflos),  either  because  he  has  contracted  no  guilt  (as,  e.  g.^ 
Chi-ist),  or,  because  in  the  way  demanded  by  the  Judge  (under 
the  Old  Testament  by  expiatory  sacrifice)  he  has  expiated  the 
guilt  contracted."^  If,  therefore,  we  take  the  word  righteous  in 
the  former  of  the  two  senses  above  mentioned,  when  it  expresses 
moral  character,  it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  say  that  God  pro- 
nounces the  sinner  righteous.  This  would  be  equivalent  to  saying 
that  God  pronounces  the  sinner  to  be  not  a  sinner,  the  wicked  to 
be  good,  the  unholy  to  be  holy.  But  if  we  take  the  word  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  Scriptures  so  often  use  it,  as  expressing  rela- 
tion to  justice,  then  Avhen  God  pronounces  the  sinner  righteous  or 
just.  He  simj)ly  declares  that  his  guilt  is  expiated,  that  justice  is 
satisfied,  that  He  has  the  righteousness  which  justice  demands. 
This  is  precisely  what  Paul  says,  when  he  says  that  God  "  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly."  (Rom.  iv.  5.)  God  does  not  pronounce  the 
ungodly  to  be  godly  ;  He  declares  that  notwithstanding  liis  per- 
sonal sinfulness  and  unworthiness,  he  is  accepted  as  righteous  on 
the  ground  of  what  Christ  has  done  for  him. 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine  just  stated. 

That  to  justify  means  neither  simply  to  pardon,  nor  to  make 
inherently  righteous  or  good  is  proved,  — 

From  the  Usage  of  Scripture. 

1.  By  the  uniform  usage  of  the  word  to  justify  in  Scripture. 
It  is  never  used  in  either  of  those  senses,  but  always  to  declare 
or  pronounce  just.  It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  passages  in  proof 
of  a  usage  which  is  uniform.  The  few  following  examples  are 
enough.  Deuteronomy  xxv.  1,  "If  there  be  a  controversy  be- 
tween men,  and  they  come  unto  judgment,  that  the  judges  may 
judge  them  ;  then  they  shall  justify  the  righteous,  and  con- 
demn the  wicked."  Exodus  xxiii.  7,  "  I  will  not  justify  the 
wicked."  Isaiah  v.  23,  "  Which  justify  the  -wicked  for  re- 
ward." Proverbs  xvii.  15,  "  He  that  justifieth  the  Avicked  "  is 
"  abomination  to  the  Lord."  Luke  x.  29,  "  He  willing  to 
justify  himself."  Luke  xvi.  15,  "  Ye  are  they  which  justify 
yourselves  before  men."     Matthew   xi.    19,  "  Wisdom  is   justi- 

1  Christliche  Do<]matik,  von  Johannes  Heiurich  August  Ebrard,  §  402,  edit.  Konigsberg, 
1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  163. 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION  A  FORENSIC   ACT.  121 

fied  of  her  children."  Galatians  ii.  16,  "  A  man  is  not  justi- 
fied by  the  works  of  the  law."  v.  6,  "  Whosoever  of  you  are 
justified  by  the  law  ;  ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  Thus  men  are 
said  to  justify  God.  Job  xxxii.  2,  "  Because  he  justified 
himself,  rather  than  God."  Psalms  li.  4,  "  That  thou  might- 
est  be  justified  when  thou  speakest."  Luke  vii.  29,  "  All  the 
people  that  heard  him,  and  the  publicans,  justified  God."  The 
only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  word  8iKatow  is 
used  in  a  different  sense  is  Revelation  xxii.  11,  6  StKatos,  StKoiw- 
6y]ria  hi,  "  He  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still."  Here 
the  first  aorist  passive  appears  to  be  used  in  a  middle  sense, 
*  Let  him  show  himself  righteous,  or  continue  righteous.'  Even 
if  the  reading  in  this  passage  were  undoubted,  this  single  case 
would  have  no  force  against  the  estabhshed  usage  of  the  word. 
The  reading,  however,  is  not  merely  doubtful,  but  it  is,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  majority  of  the  critical  editors,  Tischendorf  among 
the  rest,  incorrect.  They  give,  as  the  true  text,  8i/catocn;F7jv  TrotT^o-aro) 
hi.  Even  if  this  latter  reading  be,  as  De  Wette  thinks,  a  gloss, 
it  shows  that  o  StVaios-  8t/<ata)6'T^Tw  €71  was  as  intolerable  to  a  Greek 
ear  as  the  expression,  '  He  that  is  righteous,  let  him  justify  him- 
self still,'  would  be  to  us. 

The  usage  of  common  life  as  to  this  word  is  just  as  uniform  as 
that  of  the  Bible.  It  would  be  a  perfect  solecism  to  say  of  a 
criminal  whom  the  executive  had  pardoned,  that  he  was  justified  ; 
or  that  a  reformed  drunkard  or  thief  was  justified.  The  word 
always  expresses  a  judgment,  whether  of  the  mind,  as  when  one 
man  justifies  another  for  his  conduct,  or  officially  of  a  judge.  If 
such  be  the  established  meaning  of  the  word,  it  ought  to  settle  all 
controversy  as  to  the  nature  of  justification.  We  are  bound  to 
take  the  words  of  Scripture  in  their  true  established  sense.  And, 
therefore,  when  the  Bible  says,  "  God  justifies  the  believer,"  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  say  that  it  means  that  He  pardons,  or  that 
He  sanctifies  him.  It  means,  and  can  mean  only  that  He  pro- 
nounces him  just. 

Justification  the  Opposite  of  Condemnation. 
2.  This  is  still  further  evident  from  the  antithesis  between 
condemnation  and  justification.  Condemnation  is  not  the  oppo- 
site either  of  pardon  or  of  reformation.  To  condemn  is  to  pro- 
nounce guilty  ;  or  worthy  of  punishment.  To  justify  is  to 
declare  not  guilty  ;  or  that  justice  does  not  demand  punish- 
ment ;  or  that  the  person  concerned  camiot  justly  be  condemned. 


122  PAKT  m.   Ch.  XVII.— justification. 

When,  therefore,  the  Apostle  says  (Rom.  viii.  1),  "  There  is, 
therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  wliich  are  in  Christ  Je- 
sus," he  declares  that  they  are  absolved  from  guilt ;  that  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  cannot  justly  be  inflicted  upon  them.  "  Who," 
he  asks,  "  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  ?  God 
who  justifieth  ?  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  Christ  who 
died?  "  (vers.  33,  34.)  Against  the  elect  in  Christ  no  gi-ound  of 
condemnation  can  be  presented.  God  pronounces  them  just,  and 
therefore  no  one  can  pronounce  them  guilty. 

This  passage  is  certainly  decisive  against  the  doctrine  of  sub- 
jective justification  in  any  form.  This  opposition  between  con- 
demnation and  justification  is  familiar  both  in  Scripture  and  in 
common  life.  Job  ix,  20,  "  If  I  justify  myself,  mine  own 
mouth  shall  condemn  me."  xxxiv.  17,  "And  wilt  thou  con- 
demn him  that  is  most  just."  If  to  condemn  does  not  mean  to 
make  wicked,  to  justify  does  not  mean  to  make  good.  And  if 
condemnation  is  a  judicial,  as  opposed  to  an  executive  act,  so  is 
justification.  In  condemnation  it  is  a  judge  who  pronounces  sen- 
tence on  the  guilty.  In  justification  it  is  a  judge  who  pronounces 
or  who  declares  the  person  arraigned  free  from  guilt  and  entitled 
to  be  treated  as  righteous. 

Argument  from  Equivalent  Forms  of  Expression. 

3.  The  forms  of  expression  which  are  used  as  equivalents  of 
the  word  "  justify  "  clearly  determine  the  nature  of  the  act. 
Thus  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God 
imputeth  righteousness  without  works."  (Rom.  iv.  6.)  To  im- 
pute righteousness  is  not  to  pardon  ;  neither  is  it  to  sanctify.  It 
means  to  justify,  i.  g.,  to  attribute  righteousness.  The  negative 
form  in  which  justification  is  described  is  equally  significant. 
"  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  im- 
pute sin."  •'(Rom.  iv.  7,  8.)  As  "  to  impute  sin  "  never  means 
and  cannot  mean  to  make  wicked;  so  the  negative  statement 
"  not  to  impute  sin  "  cannot  mean  to  sanctify.  And  as  "  to  im- 
pute sin  "  does  mean  to  lay  sin  to  one's  account  and  to  treat  him 
accordingly ;  so  to  justify  means  to  lay  righteousness  to  one's  ac- 
count and  treat  him  accordingly.     "  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 

world  to  condemn  the  world He  that  beheveth  on  him 

is  not  condemned :  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
akeady."     (John  iii.  17,  18.) 

For  "  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION   A   FORENSIC   ACT.  123 

condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  Hfe."  (Rom.  v.  18.)  It 
was  K-ptfia,  a  judicial  sentence,  which  came  on  men  for  the  offence 
of  Adam,  and  it  is  a  judicial  sentence  (justification,  a  8t/<atoj(jts) 
which  comes  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or,  as  is  said  in  ver. 
16  of  the  same  chapter,  it  was  a  Kpi/xa  ei?  KaTaKpi/x,a,  a  condemnatory 
sentence  that  came  for  one  offence ;  and  a  x^-P'-^l*-'^  ^'■^  hiKaiwjxa,  a 
sentence  of  gratuitous  justification  from  many  offences.  Lan- 
guage cannot  be  plainer.  If  a  sentence  of  condemnation  is  a  ju- 
dicial act,  then  justification  is  a  judicial  act. 

Argument  from  tJie  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

4.  The  judicial  character  of  justification  is  involved  in  the 
mode  in  which  the  doctrine  is  presented  in  the  Bible.  The 
Scriptures  speak  of  law,  of  its  demands,  of  its  penalty,  of  sinners 
as  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  God,  of  the  day  of  judgment.  The 
question  is.  How  shall  man  be  just  with  God  ?  The  answer  to 
this  question  determines  the  whole  method  of  salvation.  The 
question  is  not.  How  a  man  can  become  holy  ?  but,  How  can  he 
become  just  ?  How  can  he  satisfy  the  claims  which  justice  has 
against  him  ?  It  is  obvious  that  if  there  is  no  such  attribute  as 
justice  in  God  ;  if  what  we  call  justice  is  only  benevolence,  then 
there  is  no  pertinency  in  this  question.  Man  is  not  required  to 
be  just  in  order  to  be  saved.  There  are  no  claims  of  justice  to  be 
satisfied.  Repentance  is  all  that  need  be  rendered  as  the  condition 
of  restoration  to  the  favour  of  God.  Or,  any  didactic  declaration 
or  exhibition  of  God's  disapprobation  of  sin,  would  open  the  way 
for  the  safe  pardon  of  sinners.  Or,  if  the  demands  of  justice 
were  easily  satisfied ;  if  partial,  imperfect  obedience  and  fatherly 
chastisements,  or  self-inflicted  penances,  would  suffice  to  satisfy 
its  claims,  then  the  sinner  need  not  be  just  with  God  in  order  to 
be  saved.  But  the  human  soul  knows  intuitively  that  these  are 
refuges  of  hes.  It  knows  that  there  is  such  an  attribute  as  jus- 
tice. It  knows  that  the  demands  thereof  are  inexorable  because 
they  are  righteous.  It  knows  that  it  cannot  be  saved  unless  it  be 
justified,  and  it  knows  that  it  cannot  be  declared  just  unless  the 
demands  of  justice  are  fully  satisfied.  Low  views  of  the  evil  of 
sin  and  of  the  justice  of  God  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  false 
views  of  this  great  doctrine. 

The  ApostWs  Argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
The  Apostie  begins  the  discussion  of  this  subject  by  assuming 


124  PART  III.     Ch.   XVIL  —  justification. 

that  the  justice  of  God,  his  purpose  to  punish  all  sin,  to  demand 
perfect  conformity  to  his  law,  is  revealed  from  heaven,  i.  e.,  so 
revealed  that  no  man,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  can  deny  it. 
(Rom.  i.  18.)  Men,  even  the  most  degraded  pagans,  know  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God  that  those  who  sin  are  worthy  of  death, 
(ver.  32.)  He  next  proves  that  all  men  are  sinners,  and,  being 
sinners  are  under  condemnation.  The  whole  world  is  "  guilty 
before  God."  (iii.  19.)  From  tliis  he  infers,  as  intuitively  certain 
(because  plainly  included  in  the  premises),  that  no  flesh  hving 
can  be  justified  before  God  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,"  i.  e.,  on 
the  ground  of  his  own  character  and  conduct.  If  guilty  he  can- 
not be  pronounced  not  guilty,  or  just.  In  Paul's  argument,  to 
justify  is  to  pronounce  just.  AtV-aios  is  the  opposite  of  vnohLKos 
(i.  e.,  "  reus,  satisfactionem  alteri  debens"  ).  That  is,  righteous 
is  the  opposite  of  guilty.  To  pronounce  guilty  is  to  condemn. 
To  pronoimce  righteous,  i.  e.,  not  guilty,  is  to  justify.  If  a  man 
denies  the  authority  of  Scripture  ;  or  if  he  feels  at  liberty,  while 
holding  what  he  considers  the  substance  of  Scripture  doctrines, 
to  reject  the  form,  it  is  conceivable  that  he  may  deny  that  justifi- 
cation is  a  judicial  act ;  but  it  seems  impossible  that  any  one 
should  deny  that  it  is  so  represented  in  the  Bible.  Some  men 
professing  to  believe  the  Bible,  deny  that  there  is  anything  super- 
natural in  the  work  of  regeneration  and  sanctification.  '  Being 
bom  of  the  Spirit ; '  '  quickened  by  the  mighty  power  of  God ; ' 
'  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,'  are  only,  they  say,  strong  orien- 
tal expressions  for  a  seK-wrought  reformation.  By  a  similar  pro- 
cess it  is  easy  to  get  rid,  not  only  of  the  doctine  of  justification  as 
a  judicial  act,  but  of  all  other  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the 
Scriptures.     This,  however,  is  not  to  interpret,  but  to  pervert. 

The  Apostle,  having  taught  that  God  is  just,  i.  e.,  that  He 
demands  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  and  that  men  are  sinners 
and  can  render  no  such  satisfaction  themselves,  amiounces  that 
such  a  righteousness  has  been  provided,  and  is  revealed  in  the 
Gospel.  It  is  not  our  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and,  therefore,  the  righteousness 
of  God,  in  ^drtue  of  wliich,  and  on  the  ground  of  which,  God  can 
be  just  and  yet  justify  the  sinner  who  believes  in  Christ.  As  long 
as  the  Bible  stands  this  must  stand  as  a  simple  statement  of  what 
Paul  teaches  as  to  the  method  of  salvation.  Men  may  dispute 
as  to  what  he  means,  but  this  is  surely  what  he  says. 


§2,1  JUSTIFICATION    A   FORENSIC   ACT.  125 

Argument  from  the  G-round  of  Justification. 

5.  The  nature  of  justification  is  determined  by  its  ground. 
This  indeed  is  an  anticipation  of  another  part  of  the  subject,  but 
it  is  in  point  here.  If  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  ground  of  justi- 
fication, the  reason  why  God  remits  to  us  the  penalty  of  the  law 
and  accepts  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  is  something  out  of  our- 
selves, sometliing  done  for  us,  and  not  what  we  do  or  experience, 
then  it  of  necessity  follows  that  justification  is  not  subjective.  It 
does  not  consist  in  the  infusion  of  righteousness,  or  in  making  the 
person  justified  personally  holy.  If  the  "  formal  cause  "  of  our 
justification  be  our  goodness  ;  then  we  are  justified  for  what  we 
are.  The  Bible,  however,  teaches  that  no  man  living  can  be  jus- 
tified for  what  he  is.  He  is  condemned  for  what  he  is  and  for 
what  he  does.     He  is  justified  for  what  Christ  has  done  for  him. 

Justification  not  mere  Pardon. 
For  the  same  reason  justification  cannot  be  mere  pardon.  Par- 
don does  not  proceed  on  the  ground  of  a  satisfaction.  A  prisoner 
delivered  by  a  ransom  is  not  pardoned.  A  debtor  whose  obUga- 
tions  have  been  cancelled  by  a  friend,  becomes  entitled  to  free- 
dom from  the  claims  of  his  creditor.  When  a  sovereign  pardons 
a  criminal,  it  is  not  an  act  of  justice.  It  is  not  on  the  ground  of 
satisfaction  to  the  law.  The  Bible,  therefore,  in  teaching  that 
justification  is  on  the  ground  of  an  atonement  or  satisfaction; 
that  the  sinner's  guilt  is  expiated ;  that  he  is  redeemed  by  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that  judgment  is  pronounced  upon 
him  as  righteous,  does  thereby  teach  that  justification  is  neither 
pardon  nor  infusion  of  righteousness. 

Argument  from  the  Immutability  of  the  Law. 

6.  The  doctrine  that  justification  consists  simply  in  pardon,  and 
consequent  restoration,  assumes  that  the  divine  law  is  imperfect 
and  mutable.  In  human  governments  it  is  often  expedient  and 
right  that  men  justly  condemned  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law 
should  be  pardoned.  Human  laws  must  be  general.  They  can- 
not take  in  all  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  Their 
execution  would  often  work  hardship  or  injustice.  Human  judg- 
ments may  therefore  often  be  set  aside.  It  is  not  so  with  the  di- 
vine law.  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect.  And  being  perfect  it 
cannot  be  lisregarded.  It  demands  nothing  which  ought  not  to  bo 
demanded.     It  threatens  nothing  which  ought  not  to  be  inflicted. 


126  PART  m.   Ch.  XVII.  —  justification. 

It  is  in  fact  its  own  executioner.  Sin  is  death.  (Rom.  viii.  6.) 
The  justice  of  God  makes  punishment  as  inseparable  from  sin,  as 
life  is  from  holiness.  The  penalty  of  the  law  is  immutable,  and 
as  little  capable  of  being  set  aside  as  the  precept.  Accordingly 
the  Scriptures  everywhere  teach  that  in  the  justification  of  the 
sinner  there  is  no  relaxation  of  the  penalty.  There  is  no  setting 
aside,  or  disregarding  the  demands  of  the  law.  We  are  delivered  , 
from  the  law,  not  by  its  abrogation,  but  by  its  execution.  (Gal.  J 
ii.  19.)  We  are  freed  from  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ.j 
(Rom.  vii.  4.)  Christ  having  taken  our  place,  bore  our  sins  in 
his  own  body  on  the  tree.  (1  Pet.  ii.  24.)  The  handwriting 
which  was  against  us,  he  took  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his 
cross.  (Col.  ii.  14.)  We  are  therefore  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace.  (Rom.  vi.  14.)  Such  representations  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  theory  which  supposes  that  the  law  may  be  dis- 
pensed with  ;  that  the  restoration  of  sinners  to  the  favour  and 
fellowship  of  God,  requires  no  satisfaction  to  its  demands  ;  that 
the  believer  is  pardoned  and  restored  to  fellowship  with  God,  just 
as  a  thief  or  forger  is  pardoned  and  restored  to  his  civil  rights  by 
the  executive  in  human  governments.  This  is  against  the  Scrip- 
tures. God  is  just  in  justifying  the  sinner.  He  acts  according 
to  justice. 

It  will  be  seen  that  everything  in  this  discussion  turns  on  the 
question,  Whether  there  is  such  an  attribute  in  God  as  justice  ? 
If  justice  be  only  "  benevolence  guided  by  Avisdom,  "  then  there 
is  no  justification.  What  evangelical  Christians  so  regard,  is 
only  pardon  or  sanctification.  But  if  God,  as  the  Scriptures 
and  conscience  teach,  be  a  just  God,  as  immutable  in  his  justice 
as  in  his  goodness  and  truth,  then  there  can  be  no  remission  of 
the  penalty  of  sin  except  on  the  ground  of  expiation,  and  no 
justification  except  on  the  ground  of  the  satisfaction  of  justice ; 
and  therefore  justification  must  be  a  judicial  act,  and  neither  sim- 
ply pardon  nor  the  infusion  of  righteousness.  These  doctrines 
sustain  each  other.  What  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  justice  of 
God,  proves  that  justification  is  a  judicial  declaration  that  justice 
is  satisfied.  And  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  nature  of  justi- 
fication, proves  that  justice  in  God  is  something  more  than  be- 
nevolence. It  is  thus  that  all  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
are  concatenated. 


§  2.]  JUSTIFICATION  A  FORENSIC   ACT.  127 

Argument  from  the  Nature  of  our  Union  with  Christ. 
1.  The  theory  wliich  reduces  justification  to  pardon  and  its 
consequences,  is  inconsistent  with  what  is  revealed  concerning  our 
union  with  Clmst.  That  union  is  mystical,  supernatural,  repre- 
sentative, and  vital.  We  were  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  (Eph.  i.  4)  ;  we  are  in  Him  as  we  were  in  Adam 
(Rom.  V.  12,  21 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22)  ;  we  are  in  Him  as  the  members 
of  the  body  are  in  the  head  (Eph.  i.  23,  iv.  16  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  27, 
and  often)  ;  we  are  in  Him  as  the  branches  are  in  the  vine  (John 
XV.  1-12).  We  are  in  Him  in  such  a  sense  that  his  death  is  our 
death,  we  were  crucified  with  Him  (Gal.  ii.  20  ;  Rom.  vi.  1-8)  ;  we 
are  so  united  with  Him  that  we  rose  with  Him,  and  sit  with  Him 
in  heavenly  places.  (Eph.  ii.  1-6.)  In  virtue  of  this  union  we  are 
(in  our  measure)  what  He  is.  We  are  the  sons  of  God  in  Him. 
And  what  He  did,  we  did.  His  righteousness  is  our  righteousness. 
His  life  is  our  life.  His  exaltation  is  our  exaltation.  Such  is 
the  pervading  representation  of  the  Scriptures.  All  this  is  over- 
looked by  the  advocates  of  the  opposite  theory.  According  to 
that  view,  Christ  is  no  more  united  to  his  people,  except  in  sen- 
timent, than  to  other  men.  He  has  simply  done  what  renders  it 
consistent  with  the  character  of  God  and  the  interests  of  his  king- 
dom, to  pardon  any  and  every  man  who  repents  and  believes. 
His  relation  is,  purely  external.  He  is  not  so  united  to  his  people 
that  his  merit  becomes  their  merit  and  his  life  their  life.  Christ  is 
not  in  them  the  hope  of  glory.  (Col.  i.  27.)  He  is  not  of  God 
made  unto  them  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemp- 
tion. (1  Cor.  i.  30.)  They  are  not  so  in  Him  that,  in  virtue  of 
that  union,  they  are  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God.  (Col.  ii.  10  ; 
and  Eph.  iii.  19.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
justification  harmonizes  Avith  all  these  representations.  If  we  are 
so  united  to  Christ  as  to  be  made  partakers  of  his  life,  we  are  also 
partakers  of  his  righteousness.  What  He  did  in  obeying  and  suf- 
fering He  did  for  his  people.  One  essential  element  of  his  redeem- 
ing work  was  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice  in  their  behalf, 
so  that  in  Him  and  for  his  sake  they  are  entitled  to  pardon  and 
eternal  fife. 

Arguments  from  the  Effects  ascribed  to  Justification, 

8.  The  consequences  attributed  to  justification  are  inconsistent 
with  the  assumption  that  it  consists  either  in  pardon  or  in  the  in- 
fusion of  righteousness.     Those  consequences  are  peace,  reconcil- 


128  PART  m.   ch.  xvil  -  justification. 

iation,  and  a  title  to  eternal  life.  "  Being  justified  by  faith,"  says 
the  Apostle,  "  we  have  peace  with  God."  (Rom.  v.  1.)  But 
pardon  does  not  produce  peace.  It  leaves  the  conscience  unsatis- 
fied. A  pardoned  criminal  is  not  only  just  as  much  a  criminal  as 
he  was  before,  but  his  sense  of  guilt  and  remorse  of  conscience  are 
in  no  degree  lessened.  Pardon  can  remove  only  the  outward 
and  arbitrary  penalty.  The  sting  of  sin  remains.  There  can 
be  no  satisfaction  to  the  mind  until  there  is  satisfaction  of  justice. 
Justification  secures  peace,  not  merely  because  it  includes  pardon, 
but  because  that  pardon  is  dispensed  on  the  ground  of  a  full 
satisfaction  of  justice.  What  satisfies  the  justice  of  God,  satisfies 
the  conscience  of  the  sinner.  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleans- 
eth  from  all  sin  (1  John  i.  7)  by  removing  guilt,  and  thus  pro- 
ducing a  peace  which  passes  all  understanding.  When  the  soul 
sees  that  Christ  bore  his  sins  upon  the  cross,  and  endured  the 
penalty  wliich  he  had  incurred  ;  that  all  the  demands  of  the  law 
are  fully  satisfied  ;  that  God  is  more  honoured  in  his  pardon 
than  m  liis  condemnation ;  that  all  the  ends  of  punishment  are 
accomplished  by  the  work  of  Christ,  in  a  far  liigher  degree  than 
they  could  be  by  the  death  of  the  sinner  ;  and  that  he  has  a  right 
to  plead  the  infinite  merit  of  the  Son  of  God  at  the  bar  of  divine 
justice,  then  he  is  satisfied.  Then  he  has  peace.  He  is  humble ; 
he  does  not  lose  his  sense  of  personal  demerit,  but  the  conscience 
ceases  to  demand  satisfaction.  Criminals  have  often  been  known 
to  give  themselves  up  to  justice.  They  could  not  rest  until  they 
were  punished.  The  infliction  of  the  penalty  incurred  gave  them 
peace.  This  is  an  element  in  Christian  experience.  The  con- 
vinced sinner  never  finds  peace  until  he  laj'S  his  burden  of  sin  on 
the  Lamb  of  God  ;  until  he  apprehends  that  his  sins  have  been 
punished,  as  the  Apostle  says  (Rom.  viii.  3),  in  Christ. 

Again,  we  are  said  to  be  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son.  (Rom.  v.  10.)  But  pardon  does  not  produce  reconciliation. 
A  pardoned  criminal  may  be  restored  to  his  civil  rights,  so  far 
as  the  penalty  remitted  involved  their  forfeiture,  but  he  is  not 
reconciled  to  society.  He  is  not  restored  to  its  favour.  Justifica- 
tion, however,  does  secure  a  restoration  to  the  favour  and  fellow- 
ship of  God.  We  become  the  sons  of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  (Gal.  iii.  26.)  No  one  can  read  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  without  being  convinced  that  in  Raid's 
apprehension  a  justified  behever  is  something  more  than  a  par- 
doned criminal.  He  is  a  man  whose  salvation  is  secure  because  he 
is  free  from  the  law  and  all  its  demands  :  because  the  righteousness 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION   A  FORENSIC   ACT.  129 

of  the  law  (i.  e.,  all  its  righteous  requirements)  has  been  fulfilled 
in  him ;  because  thereby  he  is  so  united  to  Christ  as  to  become  a 
partaker  of  his  life  ;  because  no  one  can  lay  anything  to  the 
charge  of  those  for  whom  Christ  died  and  whom  God  has  justi- 
fied ;  and  because  such  believers  being  justified  are  revealed  as  the 
objects  of  the  mysterious,  immutable,  and  infinite  love  of  God. 

Again,  justification  includes  or  conveys  a  title  to  eternal  life. 
Pardon  is  purely  negative.  It  simply  removes  a  penalty.  It 
confers  no  title  to  benefits  not  previously  enjoyed.  Eternal  life, 
however,  is  suspended  on  the  positive  condition  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence. The  merely  pardoned  simier  has  no  such  obedience.  He  is 
destitute  of  what,  by  the  immutable  principles  of  the  divine  gov- 
ernment, is  the  indispensable  condition  of  eternal  life.  He  has 
no  title  to  the  inlieritance  promised  to  the  righteous.  This  is  not 
the  condition  of  the  believer.  The  merit  of  Christ  is  entitled  to 
the  reward.  And  the  behever,  being  partaker  of  that  merit, 
shares  in  that  title.  This  is  constantly  recognized  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. By  faith  in  Christ  we  become  the  sons  of  God.  But  son- 
ship  involves  heirsliip,  and  heirship  involves  a  title  to  the  inher- 
itance. "  If  children,  then  heirs ;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs 
with  Christ."  (Rom.  viii.  17.)  This  is  the  doctrine  taught  in 
Romans  v.  12-21.  For  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  passed  on  all 
men  to  condemnation.  For  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  sentence 
of  justification  of  life  has  passed  on  all ;  that  is,  of  a  justifica- 
tion which  entitles  to  life.  As  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  judicial 
ground  of  our  condemnation  (^.  g.,  was  the  ground  on  which  justice 
demanded  condemnation),  so  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  ju- 
dicial ground  of  justification.  That  is,  it  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  hfe  promised  to  the  righteous  should  in  justice  be  granted  to 
the  behever.  The  Church  in  all  ages  has  recognized  this  truth. 
Behevers  have  always  felt  that  they  had  a  title  to  eternal  life. 
For  this  they  have  praised  God  in  the  loftiest  strains.  They  have 
ever  regarded  it  as  intuitively  true  that  heaven  must  be  merited. 
The  only  question  was,  Whether  that  merit  was  in  them  or  in 
Christ.  Being  in  Christ,  it  was  a  free  gift  to  them ;  and  thus 
righteousness  and  peace  kissed  each  other.  Grace  and  justice 
unite  in  placing  the  crown  of  righteousness  on  the  believer's  head. 

It  is  no  less  certain  that  the  consequences  attributed  to  justi- 
fication do  not  flow  from  the  infusion  of  righteousness.  The 
amount  of  holiness  possessed  by  the  behever  does  not  give  him 
peace.  Even  perfect  holiness  would  not  remove  guilt.  Repent- 
ance does  not  atone  for  the  crime  of  murder.     It  does  not  still 

VOL  ni.  9 


130  PART  in.   Ch.  xvn.  — justification. 

the  murderer's  conscience  ;  nor  does  it  satisfy  tlie  sense  of  justice  in 
the  public  mind.  It  is  the  rrpCoTov  xf/evoo^  of  Romanism,  and  of  every 
theory  of  subjective  justification,  that  they  make  nothing  of  guilt, 
or  reduce  it  to  a  minimum.  If  there  were  no  guilt,  then  infusion 
of  righteousness  would  be  all  that  is  necessary  for  salvation.  But 
if  there  be  justice  in  God  then  no  amount  of  holiness  can  atone 
for  sin,  and  justification  camiot  consist  in  making  the  sinner  holy. 
Besides  this,  even  admitting  that  the  past  could  be  ignored,  that 
the  guilt  which  burdens  the  soul  could  be  overlooked  or  so  easily 
removed,  subjective  righteousness,  or  holiness,  is  so  imperfect  that 
it  could  never  give  the  believer  peace.  Let  the  holiest  of  men 
look  within  himself  and  say  whether  what  he  sees  there  satisfies 
his  own  conscience.  If  not,  how  can  it  satisfy  God.  He  is  greater 
than  our  hearts,  and  knoweth  all  things..  No  man,  therefore,  can 
have  peace  with  God  founded  on  what  he  is  or  on  what  he  does. 
Romanists  admit  that  nothing  short  of  perfect  holiness  justifies 
or  gives  peace  to  the  soul.  In  answer  to  the  Protestant  argument 
founded  on  that  admission,  Bellarmin  says  :  ^  "  Hoc  argumentum, 
si  quid  probat,  probat  justitiam  actualem  non  esse  perfectam :  non 
autem  probat,  justitiam  habitualem,  qua  formahter  justi  sumus, 
....  non  esse  ita  perfectam,  ut  absolute,  simpliciter,  et  proprie 
justi  nominemur,  et  simus.  Non  enim  formaliter  justi  sumus  opere 
nostro,  sed  opere  Dei,  qui  siraul  maculas  peccatorum  tergit,  et 
habitum  fidei,  spei,  et  caritatis  infundit.       Dei    autem   perfecta 

sunt  opera Unde  parvuli  baptizati,  vere  justi  sunt,  quam\as 

nihil  operis  fecerint."  Again,  "  Justitia  enim  actualis,  quamvis 
ahquo  "modo  sit  imperfecta,  propter  admixtionem  venaliura  delic- 
torum,  et  egeat  quotidiana  remissione  peccati,  tamen  non  prop- 
terea  desinit  esse  vera  justitia,  et  suo  etiam  quodam  niodo  per- 
fecta." No  provision  is  made  in  tliis  system  for  guilt.  If  the  soul 
is  made  holy  by  the  infusion  of  habits,  or  principles,  of  grace,  it 
is  just  in  the  sight  of  God.  No  guilt  or  desert  of  punishment  re- 
mains. "  Reatus,"  says  Bellarmin,^  ....  "  est  relatio,"  but  if 
the  thing  of  which  it  is  a  relation  be  taken  away,  where  is  the 
relation.  It  is  impossible  that  such  a  view  of  justification  can 
give  peace.  It  makes  no  provision  for  the  satisfaction  of  justice, 
and  places  all  our  hopes  upon  what  is  -vvdthin,  which  our  con- 
science testifies  cannot  meet  the  just  requirements  of  God. 

Neither  can  the  theory  of  subjective  justification  account  for 
reconciliation  vnth  God,  and  for  the  same  reasons.     What  is  in- 

1  De  Justificatione,  ii.  14  ;  Disputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  ir.  p.  819,  a,  b. 

2  De  Amisdone  Gratice  et  Statu  Peccati,  v.  7  ;  Ibid,  p.  287. 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION  A  FORENSIC  ACT.  131 

fused,  the  degree  of  holiness  imparted,  does  not  render  us  the  ob- 
jects of  divine  complacency  and  love.  His  love  to  us  is  of  the 
nature  of  grace ;  love  for  the  unlovely.  We  are  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  his  Son.  That  removes  the  obstacle  arising 
from  justice  to  the  outflow  toward  us  of  the  mysterious,  unmer- 
ited love  of  God.  We  are  accepted  in  the  beloved.  We  are  not 
in  ourselves  fit  for  fellowship  with  God.  And  if  driven  to  de- 
pend on  what  is  within,  on  our  subjective  righteousness,  instead 
of  peace  we  should  have  despair. 

Again,  justification  according  to  the  Scriptures  gives  a  title  to 
eternal  life.  For  this  our  own  righteousness  is  utterly  inade- 
quate. So  far  from  anything  in  us  being  meritorious,  or  entitled 
to  reward,  the  inward  state  and  the  exercises  of  the  holiest  of 
men,  come  so  far  short  of  perfection  as  to  merit  condemnation. 
In  us  there  is  no  good  thing.  When  we  would  do  good,  evil  is 
present  with  us.  There  is  ever  a  law  in  our  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  the  mind.  Indwelling  sin  remains.  It  forced 
even  Paul  to  cry  out,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall 
deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death."  (Rom.  vii.  24.) 
"  Nullum  unquam  exstitisse  pii  hominis  opus,  quod,  si  severe 
Dei  judicio  examinaretur,  non  esset  damnabile."  ^  Ignoring  this 
plain  truth  of  Scripture  and  of  Christian  experience  expressing 
itself  in  daily  and  hourly  confession,  humiliation,  and  prayers  for 
forgiveness,  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification  assumes  that 
there  is  no  sin  in  the  believer,  or  no  sin  which  merits  the  condem- 
nation of  God,  but  on  the  contrary  that  there  is  in  him  what  mer- 
its eternal  life.  The  Romanists  make  a  distinction  between  a  first 
and  second  justification.  The  first  they  admit  to  be  gratuitous, 
and  to  be  founded  on  the  merit  of  Christ,  or  rather,  to  be  gratui- 
tously bestowed  for  Christ's  sake.  This  consists  in  the  infusion 
of  habitual  grace  (i.  e.,  regeneration).  This  justifies  in  render- 
ing the  soul  subjectively  just  or  holy.  The  second  justification  is 
not  a  matter  of  grace.  It  is  founded  on  the  merit  of  good  works, 
the  fruits  of  regeneration.  But  if  these  fruits  are,  as  our  con- 
sciousness testifies,  defiled  by  sin,  how  can  they  merit  eternal  life  ? 
How  can  they  cancel  the  handwriting  which  is  against  us  ?  How 
can  they  be  the  ground  of  Paul's  confident  challenge,  "  Who 
shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  ?  "  It  is  not  what 
is  ^vithin  us,  but  what  is  without  us  ;  not  what  we  are  or  do,  but 
what  Christ  is  and  has  done,  that  is  the  ground  of  confidence  and 
of  our  title  to  eternal  life.     This  is  the  admitted  doctrine  of  the 

'  Calvin,  Institutio,  iii.  xiv.  11 ;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  part  ii.  p.  38. 


132  PART  m.  ch.  xvil— justification. 

Protestant  Reformation.  "  Apud  theologos  Augustanse  confessio- 
nis  extra  controversiam  positum  est,"  says  the  "  Form  of  Con- 
cord," "  totam  justitiam  nostram  extra  nos,  et  extra  omnium  homi- 
num  merita,  opera,  virtutes  atque  dignitatem  qua^rendam,  eamque 
in  solo  Domino  nostro,  Jesu  Christo  consistere."  As  high  as  the 
heavens  are  above  the  earth,  so  high  is  a  hope  founded  on  the 
work  of  Christ  for  us,  above  a  hope  founded  on  the  merit  of  any- 
thing wrought  in  us.  Calvin  teaches  the  same  doctrine  as  Lu- 
ther.^ He  quotes  Lombard  as  saying  that  our  justification  in 
Christ  may  be  interpreted  in  two  ways  :  "  Primum,  mors  Christi 
nos  justificat,  dum  per  eam  excitatur  caritas  in  cordibus  nostris, 
qua  justi  efficimur  :  deinde  quod  per  eandem  exstinctum  est  pec- 
catum  ;  quo  nos  captivos  distinebat  diabolus,  ut  jam  non  habeat 
unde  nos  damnet."  To  which  Calvin  replies,  "  Scriptura  autem, 
quern  de  fidei  justitia  loquitur,  longe  alio  nos  ducit :  ngmpe  ut  ab 
intuitu  operum  nostrorum  aversi,  in  Dei  misericordiam  ac  Christi 

perfectionem,  tantum  respiciamus Hie  est  fidei  sensus,  per 

quem  peccator  in  possessionem  venit  suae  salutis,  dum  ex  Evan- 
gelii  doctrina  agnoscit  Deo  se  reconciliatum  :  quod  intercedente 
Christi  justitia,  impetrata  peccatorum  remissione,  justificatus  sit : 
et  quanquam  Spiritu  Dei  regeneratus,  non  in  bonis  operibus,  qui- 
bus  incumbit,  sed  sola  Christi  justitia  repositam  sibi  perpetuam 
justitiam  cogitat." 

That  justification  is  not  merely  pardon,  and  that  it  is  not  the 
infusion  of  righteousness  whereby  the  sinner  is  made  inherently 
just  or  holy,  but  a  judgment  on  the  part  of  God  that  the  de- 
mands of  the  law  in  regard  to  the  believer  are  satisfied,  and  that 
he  has  a  right  to  a  righteousness  which  entitles  him  to  eternal 
life,  has  been  argued,  (1.)  From  the  uniform  usage  of  Scripture 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  (2.)  From  the  constant 
opposition  between  justification  and  condemnation.  (3.)  From 
equivalent  forms  of  expression.  (4.)  From  the  whole  design  and 
drift  of  the  Apostle's  argument  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
to  the  Galatians.  (5.)  From  the  ground  of  justification,  namely, 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  (6.)  From  the  immutability  of  the 
law  and  the  justice  of  God.  (7.)  From  the  nature  of  our  union 
with  Christ.  (8.)  From  the  fact  that  peace,  reconciliation  ^vith 
God,  and  a  title  to  eternal  life  which  according  to  Scripture,  are 
the  consequences  of  justification,  do  not  flow  either  from  mere  par- 
don or  from  subjective  righteousness,  or  from  sanctification.    That 

1  Solida  Declaratio,  iii.  55 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1846,  p.  696. 
*  iTUtitutio,  HI.  xi.  15,  16 ;  ut  supra,  p.  17. 


§2.]  JUSTIFICATION  A  FORENSIC   ACT.  133 

this  is  the  doctrine  of  Protestants,  both  Lutheran  and  Reformed, 
cannot  with  any  show  of  reason  be  disputed. 

Calvin'' 8  Doctrine. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  by  the  earher  Reformers,  and  especially 
by  Calvin,  justification  is  often  said  to  consist  in  the  pardon  of 
sin.  But  that  that  was  not  intended  as  a  denial  of  the  judicial 
character  of  justification,  or  as  excluding  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  by  which  the  believer  is  counted  just  in 
the  sight  of  the  law,  is  obvious,  — 

1.  From  the  nature  of  the  controversy  in  which  those  Reform- 
ers were  engaged.  The  question  between  them  and  the  Roman- 
ists was.  Does  justification  consist  in  the  act  of  God  making  the 
sinner  inherently  just  or  holy  ?  or.  Does  it  express  the  judgment 
of  God  by  which  the  believer  is  pronounced  just  ?  What  Calvin 
denied  was  that  justification  is  a  making  holy.  What  he  affirmed 
was  that  it  was  delivering  the  believer  from  the  condemnation 
of  the  law  and  introducing  him  into  a  state  of  favour  with  God. 
The  Romanists  expressed  their  doctrine  by  saying  that  justifica- 
tion consists  in  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  infusion  of  charity  or 
righteousness.  But  by  the  remission  of  sin  they  meant  the  re- 
moval of  sin  ;  the  putting  off  the  old  man.  In  other  words,  jus- 
tification with  them  consisted  (to  use  the  scholastic  language  then 
in  vogue)  in  the  removal  of  the  habits  of  sin  and  the  infusion  of 
habits  of  grace.  In  those  justified,  therefore,  there  was  no  sin, 
and,  therefore,  nothing  to  punish.  Pardon,  therefore,  followed 
as  a  necessary  consequence.  It  was  a  mere  accessary.  This  view 
of  the  matter  makes  nothing  of  guilt ;  nothing  of  the  demands  of 
justice.  Calvin  therefore,  insisted  that  besides  the  subjective  ren- 
ovation connected  with  the  sinner's  conversion,  his  justification 
concerned  the  removal  of  guilt,  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  which 
in  the  order  of  nature,  although  not  of  time,  must  precede  the 
communication  of  the  life  of  God  to  the  soul.  That  Calvin  did 
not  differ  from  the  other  Reformers  and  the  whole  body  of  the 
Reformed  Church  on  this  subject  appears  from  his  own  explicit 
declarations,  and  from  the  perfectly  unambiguous  statements  of 
the  Confessions  to  which  he  gave  his  assent.  Thus  he  says,^ 
"  Porro  ne  impingamus  in  ipso  limine  (quod  fieret  si  de  re 
incognita  disputationem  ingrediremur)  primum  explicemus  quid 
sibi  velint  ista3  loquutiones,  Hominem  coram  Deo  justificari.  Fide 
justificari,  vel  operibus.     Justificari  coram  Deo  dicitur  qui  judicio 

1  Instttutio,  III.  xi.  2;  ut  supra,  p.  6. 


134  PART  in.   Ch.  XVII.  — justification. 

Dei  et  censetur  Justus,  et  acceptus  est  ob  suam  justitiam  :  siqui- 
dem  ut  Deo  abominabilis  est  iniquitas,  ita  nee  peccator  in  ejus  oc- 
ulis  potest  invenire  gratiam,  quatenus  est  peccator,  et  quamdiu 
talis  censetur.  Proinde  ubicunque  peccatuni  est,  illic  etiam  se 
profert  ira  et  ultio  Dei.  Justificatur  autem  qui  non  loco  peccato- 
ris,  sed  justi  habetnr,  eoque  nomine  consistit  coram  Dei  tribunali, 
ubi  peccatores  omnes  corruunt.  Quemadmodum  si  reus  innocens 
ad  tribunal  asqui  judicis  adducatur,  ubi  secundum  innocentiam 
ejus  judicatum  fuerit,  justificatus  apud  judicem  dicitur  :  sic  apud 
Deum  justificatur,  qui  numero  peccatorum  exemptus,  Deum  ha- 
bet  su;tg  justitise  testem  et  assertorem.  Justificari,  ergo,  operibus 
ea  ratione  dicetur,  in  cujus  vita  reperietur  ea  puritas  ac  sanctitas 
quae  testimonium  justitife  apud  Dei  thronum  mereatur :  seu  qui 
operum  suorum  integritate  respondere  et  satisfacere  illius  judicio 
queat.  Contra,  justificabitur  ille  fide,  qui  operum  justitia  ex- 
clusus,  Christi  justitiam  per  fidem  apprehendit,  qua  vestitus  in 
Dei  conspectu  non  ut  peccator,  sed  tanquam  Justus  apparet.  Ita 
nos  justificationem  simpliciter  interpretamur  acceptionem,  qua 
nos  Deus  in  gratiam  receptos  pro  justos  habet.  E  am  que  in  pec- 
catorum remissione  ac  justitiae  Christi  imputatione  positam  esse 
dicimus." 

This  passage  is  decisive  as  to  the  views  of  Calvin  ;  for  it  is  pro- 
fessedly a  formal  statement  of  the  "  Status  Qutestionis  "  given 
with  the  utmost  clearness  and  precision.  Justification  consists 
"  in  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ."  "He  is  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  is  taken 
from  the  class  of  sinners,  and  has  God  for  the  witness  and  as- 
sertor  of  his  righteousness." 

§  3.  Works  not  the   G-round  of  Justification. 

In  reference  to  men  since  the  fall  the  assertion  is  so  explicit  and 
so  often  repeated,  that  justification  is  not  of  works,  that  that  prop- 
osition has  never  been  called  in  question  by  any  one  professing  to 
receive  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God.  It  being  expressly 
asserted  that  the  whole  world  is  guilty  before  God,  that  by  the 
works  of  the  law  no  flesh  li\dng  can  be  justified,  the  only  ques- 
tion open  for  discussion  is.  What  is  meant  by  works  of  the  law  ? 

To  this  question  the  following  answers  have  been  given.  First, 
that  by  works  of  the  law  are  meant  works  prescribed  in  the  Jew- 
ish law.  It  is  assumed  that  as  Paul's  controversy  was  with  those 
who  taught  that  unless  men  were  circumcised  and  kept  the  law 
of  Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved  (Acts  xv.  1,  24),  all  he  intended 


§3.]  WORKS  NOT  ITS   GROUND.  135 

to  teach  was  the  reverse  of  that  proposition.  He  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  saying  that  the  observance  of  Jewish  rites  and  cere- 
monies is  not  essential  to  salvation  ;  that  men  are  not  made  right- 
eous or  good  by  external  ceremonial  works,  but  by  works  morally 
good.  This  is  the  ground  taken  by  Pelagians  and  by  most  of  the 
modern  Rationalists.  It  is  only  a  modification  of  this  view  that 
men  are  not  justified,  that  is,  that  their  character  before  God  is 
not  determined  so  much  by  their  particular  acts  or  works,  as  by 
their  general  disposition  and  controlling  principles.  To  be  justi- 
fied by  faith,  therefore,  is  to  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  our 
trust,  or  pious  confidence  in  God  and  truth.  Thus  Wegscheider  ^ 
says,  "  Homines  non  singulis  quibusdam  recte  factis  oj)eribusque 
operatis,  nee  propter  meritum  quoddam  iis  attribuendum,  sed  sola 
vera  fide,  ^.  e.,  animo  ad  Christi  exemplirm  ejusdemque  prgecepta 
composite  et  ad  Deum  et  sanctissimum  et  benignissimum  conver- 
se, ita,  ut  omnia  cogitata  et  facta  ad  Deum  ejusque  voluntatem 
sanctissimam  pie  referant,  Deo  vere  probantur  et  benevolentiae 
Dei  confisi  spe  beatitatis  futurae  pro  dignitate  ipsorum  morali 
iis  concedendoe  certissima  imbuuntur.  "  Steudlin,^  expresses  the 
same  view.  "  All  true  reformation,  every  good  act,"  he  says, 
"  must  spring  from  faith,  provided  we  understand  by  faith  the 
conviction  that  something  is  right,  a  conviction  of  general  moral 
and  religious  principles."  Kant  says  that  Christ  in  a  religious 
aspect  is  the  ideal  of  humanity.  When  a  man  so  regards  him 
and  endeavours  to  conform  his  heart  and  life  to  that  ideal,  he  is 
justified  by  faith. ^  According  to  all  these  views,  mere  ceremo- 
nial works  are  excluded,  and  the  ground  of  justification  is  made 
to  be  our  own  natural  moral  character  and  conduct. 

Romish  Doctrine. 

Secondly.  The  doctrine  of  Romanists  on  this  subject  is  much 
higher.  Romanism  retains  the  supernatural  element  of  Chris- 
tianity throughout.  Indeed  it  is  a  matter  of  devout  thankfulness 
to  God  that  underneath  the  numerous  grievous  and  destructive 
errors  of  the  Romish  Church,  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel  are 
preserved.  The  Trinity,  the  true  divinity  of  Christ,  the  true 
doctrine  concerning  his  person  as  God  and  man  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever ;  salvation  through  his  blood,  re- 
generation and  sanctification  through  the  almighty  power  of  the 

1  Institutiones  Theologice,  iii.  iii.  §  155,  5th  edit.  Halle,  1826,  p.  476. 

2  Dogmatik,  2ter  Th.  §  134,  13,  g,  h;  Gottingen,  1800,  pp.  783,  784. 

2  See  Strauss,  Dogmatlk,  Tubingen  and  Stuttgart,  1841,  vol.  ii.  pp.  493,  494. 


136  PART  m.   ch.  xvil— justification. 

Spirit,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  eternal  hfe,  are  doctrines 
on  which  the  people  of  God  in  that  communion  live,  and  which 
have  produced  such  saintly  men  as  St.  Bernard,  Fen^lon,  and 
doubtless  thousands  of  others  who  are  of  the  number  of  God's 
elect.  Every  true  worshipper  of  Christ  must  in  his  heart  recog- 
nize as  a  Christian  brother,  wherever  he  may  be  found,  any  one 
who  loves,  worships,  and  trusts  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh  and  the  only  Saviour  of  men.  On  the  mat- 
ter of  justification  the  Romish  theologians  have  marred  and  de- 
faced the  truth  as  they  have  almost  all  other  doctrines  pertaining 
to  the  mode  in  which  the  merits  of  Christ  are  made  available 
to  our  salvation.  They  admit,  indeed,  that  there  is  no  good  in 
lallen  man ;  that  he  can  merit  nothing  and  claim  nothing  on  the 
ground  of  anything  he  is  or  can  do  of  himself.  He  is  by  nature 
dead  in  sin  ;  and  until  made  partaker  of  a  new  life  by  the  super- 
natural power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  can  do  nothing  but  sin.  For 
Christ's  sake,  and  only  through  his  merits,  as  a  matter  of  grace, 
this  new  life  is  imparted  to  the  soul  in  regeneration  (i.  e.,  as  Ro- 
manists teach,  in  baptism).  As  life  expels  death  ;  as  light  ban- 
ishes darkness,  so  the  entrance  of  this  new  divine  life  into  the  soul 
expels  sin  (i.  e.,  sinful  habits),  and  brings  forth  the  fruits  of  right- 
eousness. Works  done  after  regeneration  have  real  merit,  "  mer- 
itum  condigni,"  and  are  the  ground  of  the  second  justification ; 
the  first  justification  consisting  in  making  the  soul  inherently  just 
by  the  infusion  of  righteousness.  According  to  this  view,  we  are 
not  justified  by  works  done  before  regeneration,  but  we  are  justi- 
fied for  gracious  works,  i.  e.,  for  works  which  spring  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  divine  life  infused  into  the  heart.  The  whole  ground  of 
our  acceptance  with  God  is  thus  made  to  be  what  we  are  and  what 
we  do. 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. 

Thirdly.  According  to  the  Remonstrants  or  Arminians  the 
works  which  are  excluded  from  our  justification  are  works  of  the 
law  as  distinguished  from  works  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  covenant 
made  with  Adam  God  demanded  perfect  obedience  as  tlie  condi- 
tion of  life.  For  Christ's  sake,  God  in  the  Gospel  has  entered  into 
a  new  covenant  with  men,  promising  them  salvation  on  the  condi- 
tion of  evangelical  obedience.  This  is  expressed  in  different  forms. 
Sometimes  it  is  said  that  we  are  justified  on  account  'of  faith. 
Faith  is  accepted  in  place  of  that  perfect  righteousness  demanded 
by  the  Adamic  law.  But  by  faith  is  not  meant  the  act  of  re- 
ceiving and  resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  salvation.    It  is  regarded 


§8.]  WORKS   NOT  ITS   GROUND.  137 

as  a  pormanent  and  controlling  state  of  mind.  And  therefore 
it  is  often  said  that  we  are  justified  by  a  "  fides  obsequiosa,"  an 
obedient  faith  ;  a  faith  which  includes  obedience.  At  other  times, 
it  is  said  that  we  are  justified  by  evangelical  obedience,  i.e.,  that 
kind  and  measure  of  obedience  which  the  Gospel  requires,  and 
which  men  since  the  fall,  in  the  proper  use  of  "  sufficient  grace  " 
granted  to  all  men,  are  able  to  render.  Limborch  says,  "Scien- 
dum, quando  dicimus,  nos  fide  justificari,  nos  non  excludere  opera, 
qnse  fides  exigit  et  tanquam  foecunda  mater  producit ;  sed  ea  inclu- 
dere."  And  again,  "  Est  itaque  [fides]  talis  actus,  qui,  licet  in  se 
spectatus  perfectus  nequaquam  sit,  sed  in  multis  deficiens,  tamen  a 
Deo,  gratiosa  et  Uberrima  volnntate,  pro  pleno  et  perfect©  accep- 
tatur,  et  propter  quem  Deus  homini  gratiose  remissionem  pecca- 
torum  et  vitas  seternge  premium  conferre  vult."  Again,^  God, 
he  says,  demands,  "  obedientiam  fidei,  hoc  est,  non  rigidam  et  ab 
omnibus  asqnalem,  prout  exigebat  lex  ;  sed  tantara,  quantam  fides, 
id  est,  certa  de  divinis  promissionibus  persuasio,  in  unoquoque  effi- 
cere  potest."  Therefore  justification,  he  says,^  "  Est  gratiosa  ses- 
timatio,  sen  potius  acceptatio  justitise  nostree  imperfectse  pro  per- 
fecta,  propter  Jesum  Christum." 

Protestant  Doctrine. 

Fourthly.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed, the  works  excluded  from  the  ground  of  our  justification 
are  not  only  ritual  or  ceremonial  works,  nor  merely  works  done 
before  regeneration,  nor  the  perfect  obedience  required  by  the 
law  given  to  Adam,  but  works  of  all  kinds,  everything  done  by 
us  or  wrought  in  us.  That  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is 
plain,  — 

1.  Because  the  language  of  Scripture  is  unlimited.  The  dec- 
laration is,  that  we  are  not  justified  "  by  works."  No  specific 
kind  of  Avorks  is  designated  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  But 
it  is  "  works  ;  "  what  Ave  do  ;  anything  and  everything  Ave  do. 
It  is,  therefore,  without  authority  that  any  man  limits  these 
general  declarations  to  any  particular  class  of  works. 

2.  The  word  law  is  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense.  It  includes 
all  revelations  of  the  Avill  of  God  as  the  rule  of  man's  obedience  ; 
and,  therefore,  by  "  works  of  the  law  "  must  be  intended  all 
kinds  of  works.  As  vd/xos  means  that  which  binds,  it  is  used  for 
the  law  of  nature,  or  the  laAV  written  on  the  heart  (Rom.  ii.  14), 

1  Theologia  Christiana,  vi.  iv.  32,  31,  37  ;  edit.  Amsterdam,  1725,  pp.  705,  b,  a,  706,  a 
*  Limborch,  vi.  iv.  18  ;  ut  supra,  p.  703,  a. 


138  PART  III.     Ch.   X\TI.  —  justification. 

for  the  Decalogue,  for  the  law  of  Moses,  for  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  (Rom.  iii.  19.)  Sometmies  one, 
and  sometimes  another  of  these  aspects  of  the  law  is  specially 
referred  to.  Paul  assures  the  Jews  that  they  could  not  be  jus- 
tified by  the  works  of  the  law,  which  was  especially  binding  on 
them.  He  assures  the  Gentiles  that  they  could  not  be  justified 
by  the  law  written  on  their  hearts.  He  assures  believers  under 
the  Gospel  that  they  cannot  be  justified  by  works  of  the  law 
binding  on  them.  The  reason  given  includes  all  possible  works. 
That  reason  is,  that  all  human  obedience  is  imperfect ;  all  men 
are  sinners  :  and  the  law  demands  perfect  obedience.  (Gal.  iii. 
10.)  Therefore,  it  is  that  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified."     (Rom.  iii.  20.) 

3.  The  law  of  which  Paul  speaks  is  the  law  which  says,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet  "  (Rom.  vii.  7)  ;  the  law  which  is  spiritual  (ver. 
14)  ;  which  is  "holy,  and  just,  and  good  "  (ver.  12)  ;  the  law  of 
which  the  great  command  is,  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  Besides,  what 
are  called  works  of  the  law  are  in  Titus  iii.  5  called  "  works  of 
righteousness."  Higher  works  than  these  there  cannot  be.  The 
Apostle  repudiates  any  ground  of  confidence  in  his  "  own  right- 
eousness "  (Phil.  iii.  9),  i.  e.,  own  excellence,  whether  habitual 
or  actual.  He  censures  the  Jews  because  they  went  about  to 
establish  their  own  righteousness,  and  would  not  submit  to  the 
righteousness  of  God.  (Rom.  x.  3.)  From  these  and  many 
similar  passages  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  any  one  or  more  specific 
kinds  of  work  which  are  exchided  from  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion, but  all  works,  all  personal  excellence  of  every  kind. 

4.  This  is  still  further  evident  from  the  contrast  constantly 
presented  between  faith  and  works.  "We  are  not  justified  by 
works,  but  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  (Gal.  ii.  16,  and  often 
elsewhere.)  It  is  not  one  kind  of  works  as  opposed  to  another  ; 
legal  as  opposed  to  evangehcal ;  natural  as  opposed  to  gracious  ; 
moral  as  opposed  to  ritual ;  but  works  of  every  kind  as  opposed 
to  faith. 

5.  The  same  is  evident  from  what  is  taught  of  the  gratuitous 
nature  of  our  justification.  Grace  and  works  are  antithetical. 
"  To  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but 
of  debt."  (Rom.  iv.  4.)  "  If  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of 
works  :  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  gi-ace."  (Rom.  xi.  6.)  Grace 
of  necessity  excludes  works  of  every  kind,  and  more  especially 
those  of  the  highest  kind,  which  might  have  some  show  of  merit. 


§3.]  WORKS   NOT  ITS   GROUND.  139 

But  merit  of  any  degree  is  of  necessity  excluded,  if  oiu'  salvation 
be  by  grace. 

6.  When  the  positive  ground  of  justification  is  stated,  it  is 
always  declared  to  be  not  anything  done  by  us  or  wrought  in  us, 
but  what  was  done  for  us.  It  is  ever  represented  as  something 
external  to  ourselves.  We  are  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
(Rom.  V.  9)  ;  by  his  obedience  (Rom.  v.  19)  ;  by  his  righteous- 
ness (ver.  18).  This  is  involved  in  the  whole  method  of  salva- 
tion. Christ  saves  us  as  a  priest ;  but  a  priest  does  not  save 
by  making  those  who  come  to  him  good.  He  does  not  work  in 
them,  but  for  them.  Christ  saves  us  by  a  sacrifice  ;  but  a  sacri- 
fice is  effectual,  not  because  of  its  subjective  effect  upon  the 
offerer,  but  as  an  expiation,  or  satisfaction  to  justice.  Christ  is 
our  Redeemer ;  he  gave  himseK  as  a  ransom  for  many.  But  a 
ransom  does  not  infuse  righteousness.  It  is  the  payment  of  a 
price.  It  is  the  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of  the  captor  upon  the 
captive.  The  whole  plan  of  salvation,  therefore,  as  presented  in 
the  Bible  an(i  as  it  is  the  hfe  of  the  Church,  is  changed,  if  the 
ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God  be  transferred  from  what 
Christ  has  done  for  us,  to  what  is  wrought  in  us  or  done  by  us. 
The  Romish  theologians  do  not  agree  exactly  as  to  whether 
habitual  or  actual  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  justification. 
Bellarmin  says  it  is  the  former. ^  He  says,  "  Solam  esse  habit- 
ualem  justitiam,  per  quam  formaUter  justi  nominamur,  et  su- 
mus :  justitiam  vero  actualem,  id  est,  opera  vere  justa  justificare 
quidem,  ut  sanctus  Jacobus  loquitur,  cum  ait  cap.  2  ex  operibus 
hominem  justificari,  sed  meritorie,  non  formaliter."  This  he 
says  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
teaches,^  "  Causam  formalem  justificationis  esse  justitiam,  sive 
caritatem,  quam  Deus  unicuique  propriam  infundit,  secundum 
mensuram  dispositionum,  et  quae  in  cordibus  justificatorum  in- 
liaeret."  This  follows  also,  he  argues,  from  the  fact  that  the 
sacraments  justify ,2  "  per  modum  instrumenti  ad  infusionem 
justi tiae  habitualis."  This,  however,  only  amounts  to  the  dis- 
tinction, already  referred  to,  between  the  first  and  second  justi- 
fication. The  infusion  of  righteousness  renders  the  soul  inher- 
ently righteous  ;  then  good  works  merit  salvation.  The  one  is 
the  formal,  the  other  the  meritorious  cause  of  the  sinner's  justi- 
fication. But  according  to  the  Scriptures,  both  habitual  and 
actual  righteousness,  both  inherent  grace  and  its  fruits  are  ex- 
cluded from  any  share  in  the  ground  of  our  justification. 

1  De  Jtistificatione,  ii.  15;  Disputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  820,  a. 

2  See  Session  vi.  cap.  7.  8  Bellarmin,  ut  supra,  p.  820,  b. 


140  PART  III.   Ch.  xvn.  — justification. 

7.  This  still  further  and  most  decisively  appears  from  the 
grand  objection  to  his  doctrine  which  Paul  was  constantly  called 
upon  to  answer.  That  objection  was,  that  if  our  personal  good- 
ness or  moral  excellence  is  not  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with 
God,  then  all  necessity  of  being  good  is  denied,  and  all  motive 
to  good  works  is  removed.  We  may  continue  in  sin  that  grace 
may  aboimd.  This  objection  has  been  reiterated  a  thousand 
times  since  it  was  urged  against  the  Apostles.  It  seems  so  un- 
reasonable and  so  demoralizing  to  say  as  Paul  says,  Romans  iii. 
22,  that  so  far  as  justification  is  concerned  there  is  no  difference 
between  Jew  and  Gentile ;  between  a  Avorshipper  of  the  true 
God  and  a  worshipper  of  demons  ;  between  the  greatest  sinner 
and  the  most  moral  man  in  the  world,  that  men  have  ever  felt 
that  they  were  doing  God  service  in  denouncing  this  doctrine  as 
a  soul-destroying  heresy.  Had  Paul  taught  that  men  are  jus- 
tified for  their  good  moral  works  as  the  Pelagians  and  Ration- 
alists say  ;  or  for  their  evangelical  obedience  as  the  Remonstrants 
say  ;  or  for  their  inherent  righteousness  and  subsequent  good 
works  as  the  Romanists  say,  there  would  have  been  no  room  for 
this  formidable  objection.  Or,  if  through  any  misapprehension 
of  his  teaching,  the  objection  had  been  urged,  how  easy  had  it 
been  for  the  Apostle  to  set  it  aside.  How  obvious  would  have 
been  the  answer,  '  I  do  not  deny  that  really  good  works  are  the 
ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  I  only  say  that  ritual  works 
have  no  worth  in  his  sight,  that  He  looks  on  the  heart ;  or,  that 
works  done  before  regeneration  have  no  real  excellence  or  merit ; 
or,  that  God  is  more  lenient  now  than  in  his  dealing  with  Adam  ; 
that  He  does  not  demand  perfect  obedience,  but  accepts  our  im- 
perfect, well-meant  endeavours  to  keep  liis  holy  commandments.' 
How  reasonable  and  satisfactory  would  such  an  answer  have 
been.  Paul,  however,  does  not  make  it.  He  adheres  to  his 
doctrine,  that  our  own  personal  moral  excellence  has  nothing  to 
do  with  our  justification ;  that  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  that 
He  receives  the  chief  of  sinners.  He  answers  the  objection  in- 
deed, and  answers  it  effectually  ;  but  his  answer  supposes  him 
to  teach  just  what  Protestants  teach,  that  we  are  justified  with- 
out works,  not  for  our  OAvn  righteousness,  but  gratuitously,  with- 
out money  and  without  price,  solely  on  the  ground  of  what  Christ 
has  done  for  us.  His  answer  is,  that  so  far  from  its  being  true 
that  we  must  be  good  before  we  can  be  justified,  we  must  be 
justified  before  we  can  be  good  ;  that  so  long  as  we  are  under 
the  curse  of  the  law  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death ;  that  it  is 


§4.]      THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS   OF   CHRIST  ITS   GROUND.      141 

not  until  reconciled  unto  God  by  tlie  death  of  hiii  Son,  that  we 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  righteousness  ;  that  when  justified  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  we  are  made  partakers  of  his  Spirit ; 
being  justified  we  are  sanctified  ;  that  union  with  Christ  by  faith 
secures  not  only  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  our  justi- 
fication, but  the  participation  of  his  life  unto  our  sanctification  , 
so  that  as  surely  as  He  lives  and  lives  unto  God,  so  they  that 
believe  on  Him  shall  live  unto  God  ;  and  that  none  are  partakers 
of  the  merit  of  his  death  who  do  not  become  partakers  of  the 
power  of  his  life.  We  do  not,  therefore,  he  says,  make  void  the 
law  of  God.  Yea,  we  establish  the  law.  We  teach  the  only  true 
way  to  become  holy  ;  although  that  way  appears  foolishness  unto 
the  wise  of  this  world,  whose  wisdom  is  folly  in  the  sight  of  God. 

§  4.   The  Righteousness  of  Christ  the  G-round  of  Justification. 

The  imperative  question  remains.  How  shall  a  man  be  just 
with  God.?  If  our  moral  excellence  be  not  the  ground  on  which 
God  pronounces  us  just,  what  is  that  ground  ?  The  grand  reason 
why  such  different  answers  are  given  to  this  question  is,  that  it 
is  understood  in  different  senses.  The  Scriptural  and  Protestant 
answer  is  absurd,  if  the  question  means  what  Romanists  and 
others  understand  it  to  mean.  If  "  just  "  means  good,  i.  e.,  if 
the  word  be  taken  in  its  moral,  and  not  in  its  judicial  sense,  then 
it  is  absurd  to  say  that  a  man  can  be  good  with  the  goodness  of 
another  ;  or  to  say  that  God  can  pronounce  a  man  to  be  good 
who  is  not  good.  Bellarmin  says  an  Ethiopian  clothed  in  a  white 
garment  is  not  white.  Curcellaeus,  the  Remonstrant,  says,  "  A 
man  can  no  more  be  just  with  the  justice  of  another,  than  he  can 
be  white  with  the  whiteness  of  another."  Moehler  ^  says,  it  is 
impossible  that  anything  should  appear  to  God  other  than  it 
really  is  ;  that  an  unjust  man  should  appear  to  him,  or  be  pro- 
nounced by  him  just.  All  this  is  true  in  the  sense  intended  by 
these  writers,  "  The  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth." 
(Rom.  ii.  2.)  Every  man  is  truly  just  whom  He  justifies  or  de- 
clares to  be  just.  It  is  in  vain  to  dispute  until  the  "  status  qu»s- 
tionis  "  be  clearly  determined.  The  word  StVatos,  "  righteous,"  or 
"just,"  has  two  distinct  senses,  as  above  state  I.  It  has  a  moral, 
and  also  a  legal,  forensic,  or  judicial  sense.  It  sometimes  ex- 
presses moral  character,  sometimes  simply  a  relation  to  law  and 
justice.  In  one  sense  to  pronounce  a  man  just,  is  to  declare  that 
he  is  morally  good.  In  another  sense,  it  is  to  declare  that  the 
1  Symbolik,  §  14,  6th  ed.  Maiaz,  1843,  p.  139. 


142  PART   III.     Cn.   XVTT.  —  .TrSTIFlCATION. 

claims  of  justice  ac^vinst  him  arc  satisfied,  and  tliat  he  ia  enti- 
th'd  to  the  rewhrd  promised  to  the  righteous.  When  God  jus- 
tifies the  ungotlly,  he  does  not  dechvre  that  he  is  godly,  but  that 
his  sins  are  expiated,  and  that  he  has  a  title  founded  in  justice  to 
eternal  life.  In  this  there  is  no  contradiction  and  no  absurdity. 
If  a  man  under  attainder  appear  before  the  proper  tribunal,  and 
show  cause  wln^  thck  attainder  should  in  justice  be  reversed,  and 
he  be  declared  entitled  to  his  rank,  titles,  and  estates,  a  decision  in 
his  favour  would  be  a  justification.  It  would  declare  him  just  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  but  it  would  declare  nothing  and  effect  noth- 
ing as  to  his  mor.il  character.  In  the  like  manner,  when  the 
sinner  stands  at  the  bar  of  God,  he  can  show  good  reason  why  lu> 
C4vnnot  be  justly  condemned,  and  why  he  should  be  declared  en- 
titled to  eternal  life.  Now  the  question  is,  "  On  what  ground 
can  God  pronounce  a  sinner  just  in  this  legjxl  or  forensic  sense  ?  " 
It  has  been  shown  that  to  justify,  according  to  uniform  Scriptural 
xisage,  is  to  pronounce  just  in  the  sense  stated,  that  it  is  not  mere- 
ly to  pardon,  and  that  it  is  not  to  render  inherently  righteous  or 
holy.  It  has  also  been  showni  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  what 
indeed  is  intuitively  true  to  the  conscience,  that  our  moral  excel- 
lence, habitual  or  actual,  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  ground  of  any 
such  judicial  declaration.  What  then  is  the  groinid  ?  The  Bible 
and  the  people  of  God,  with  one  voice  answer.  "  The  righteous- 
ness of  Christ."  The  ambiguity  of  words,  the  speculations  of 
theologians,  and  misapprehensions,  may  cause  many  of  the  peo- 
ple of  God  to  deny  in  words  that  such  is  the  proper  answer,  but 
it  is  nevertheless  the  answer  rendered  bj^  everj^  believer's  heart. 
He  relies  for  his  acceptance  with  God,  not  on  himself  but  on 
Christ,  not  on  what  he  is  or  has  done,  but  on  what  Christ  is  and 
has  done  for  him. 

Meaning    of  the    Terms. 

By  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  meant  all  he  bec^ime,  did, 
and  suffered  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  divine  justice,  and  merit 
for  his  jH'ople  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  the  gift  of  eternal  life. 
The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  commonly  re]>resented  as  inrluding 
his  active  and  passive  obedience.  This  distinction  is,  as  to  -the 
idea.  Scriptural.  The  Bible  does  teach  that  Christ  obeyed  the 
law  in  all  its  precepts,  and  that  he  endured  its  penalty,  and  that 
this  was  done  in  such  sense  for  his  people  that  they  are  said  to 
have  done  it.  They  died  in  Him.  They  were  crucified  with 
Him.  They  were  delivered  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  his  be- 
ing made  a  curse  for  them.     He  was  made  under  the  law  that  he 


$i-J       niE  EIGHTEOCSXESS  OF  CHKtST  fTS  GBf}USD.      113 

rrj.j;ht  r»^f3f>m  tbrMK;  wfco  w<>re  aad^^  tbe  law.  We  are  freed 
f.' .  .'  -':.-.  Va'm  by  th«  bodr  (A.  Christ.  He  W2111  made  mn  that  we 
;:.;.'.*  .  made  the  righte<r#aisne«  ''^  God  in  Him.  He  is  the  end 
<rf  the  law  for  rig^itwa«ie»i  t«  all  th^;m  that  befiere,  ft  i*  by 
hk  ^Atedknee  that  many  are  mad«  righteoas.  (JReai,  r.  19.  j 
We  obeyed  in  Hiia,  a/3Cf.«^ng  to  iheii^^ng  of  tlie  AposUe,  in 
H/rjotsuas  r.  12-21,  in  th«:  same  seme  in  whk;h  we  »nned  in  Adam. 
The  aurrtire  and  paiwire  obedieti  -  <•  -  ■ 
fereat  pha«e«  ^^  a«pe<^  frf  the  ,  - 

ing.  Hi»  )a^ieet  a/iti  fA  obedien<^  were  rend<i*ed  in  the  garden, 
and  upon  the  cro«.     }lHnf!:fi  thia  distin^  '  ^.ented  in 

Script  are  aui  though  the  obedience  of  ^  '/ue  par- 

pose,  and  hui  snfferings  another  and  a  distinrct  parpo«se.  We  are 
jiMtif      '     '  .^     We  are  reeonciled  onto  T-  '-!« dealli. 

We  a  .  all  the  demaiid«  of  the  layr  b_  iy  (^ook. 

ynL  4},  anl  we  are  freed  from  the  law  by  his  being  made  omler 
it  and  ol>eying  it  in  otir  stea/L  CGaL  ir.  4,  o.}  Thus  the  same 
effect  is  ascribed  to  the  death  or  sofffiaings  fA  Christ,  and  to  his 
obedience,  beea»ise  both  are  Uxvta  or  parts  of  his  obedienee  or 
righteoa«aes«  by  wlildi  we  are  jrjstified-  In  other  words  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ  inckides  all  He  'lid  in  satisfying  the  demands  ol 
*.he  law. 

r/oe  BighUnumem  of  C%rixt  w  ?A>e  Righteomanen  <jf  <r<xf. 

The  righteoosoefls  of  Christ  on  the  groond  of  whiich  the  beKever 

is  jagtiSed  is  the  ri^^liteoQSoess  of  God.     It 'a  to  demgoated  in 

Smpture  not  only  becaose  it  was  prorided  and  is  aeoepted  by 

Him ;  it  is  not  rmiy  the  ri^iteoasness  wfaidi  arails  before  God, 

bot  it  is  the  lig^iteoasiKns  of  a  divine  person ;  of  God  manifert 

in  the  &eA,     God  porcfaase'l  the   Chnrdii  with  his  own  Mood. 

Acts  XX,  28.)     It  was  the  Lord  of  ^l^^rj  who  was  cmdfied. 

'  ''         ';-  8.)     He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  and  though  it 

rv  to  be  equal  with  God,  became  oljedient  nsto  deaih^ 

e-.-er.  h  ot  the  cross.     (PML  iL  6-8.)     He  who  is  the 

r-  ,  j^ory,  an^l  the  express  image  of  his 

-lo^  Vjry  the  word  of  his  power :  whom 

^,  p ;  who  is  est3i]ed  God ;  who  in  the  beginning  laid 

'  *^         -^^      nA  fA  whose  hands  the  hearens  arc 

-^1  and  immntaUe,  has,  the  Apostie 

1  him  who  has  the  power  of  death  and 

ir.    Tj  r^     .  /~r   Si.^,    jjr .  i^  fear  of  death  (»*.  «.,  fA  the  wradi  erf 

''iod^  were  all  their  Uifitime  snhjeet  to  bondage.     THeb.  i.,  iL) 


144  PART  ni.   Ch.  XVII. —justification. 

He  wliom  Thomas  recognized  and  avowed  to  be  Ms  Lord  and 
(jrod  was  the  person  mto  whose  wounded  side  he  thrust  his  hand. 
He  whom  John  says  he  saw,  looked  upon,  and  handled,  he  de- 
clares to  be  the  true  God  and  eternal  life.  The  soul,  in  which 
personality  resides,  does  not  die  when  the  man  dies,  yet  it  is  the 
soul  that  gives  dignity  to  the  man,  and  which  renders  his  life  of 
unspeakably  greater  value  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man,  than  the 
life  of  any  irrational  creature.  So  it  was  not  the  divine  nature 
in  Christ  in  which  his  personality  resides,  the  eternal  Logos,  that 
died  when  Christ  died.  Nevertheless  the  hypostatic  union  be- 
tween the  Logos  and  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  makes  it  true 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  (his  obedience  and  sufferings) 
was  the  righteousness  of  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  can 
avail  before  God  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole  world.  This  is 
the  reason  why  the  believer,  when  arrayed  in  this  righteousness, 
need  fear  neither  death  nor  hell.  This  is  the  reason  why  Paul 
challenges  the  universe  to  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect. 

§  5.  Imputation  of  Righteousness. 

The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  the  believer  for  his 
justification.  The  word  impute  is  familiar  and  unambiguous. 
To  impute  is  to  ascribe  to,  to  reckon  to,  to  lay  to  one's  charge. 
When  we  say  we  impute  a  good  or  bad  motive  to  a  man,  or  that 
a  good  or  evil  action  is  imputed  to  him,  no  one  misunderstands 
our  meaning.  Philemon  had  no  doubt  what  Paul  meant  when  he 
told  him  to  impute  to  him  the  debt  of  Onesimus.  "  Let  not  the 
king  impute  anything  unto  his  servant."  (1  Sam.  xxii.  15.) 
"  Let  not  my  lord  impute  iniquity  unto  me."  (2  Sam.  xix.  19.) 
"  Neither  shall  it  be  imputed  unto  him  that  offereth  it."  (Lev. 
vii.  18.)  "  Blood  shall  be  imputed  unto  that  man;  he  hath  shed 
blood."  (Lev.  xvii.  4.)  "  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the 
Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity."  (Ps.  xxxii.  2.)  "  Unto  whom 
God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works."  (Rom.  iv.  6.) 
God  is  "  in  Christ  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them." 
(2  Cor.  V.  19.) 

The  meaning  of  these  and  similar  passages  of  Scripture  ha» 
never  been  dispvited.  Every  one  understands  them.  We  aso 
the  word  impute  in  its  simple  admitted  sense,  when  we  say  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  the  believer  for  his  jus- 
tification. 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  remark  that  this  does  not,  and  cannot 
mean  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  infused  into  the  behever, 


§5.]  IMPUTATION   OF   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  145 

or  in  any  way  so  imparted  to  him  as  to  change,  or  constitute  Ms 
moral  character.  Imputation  never  changes  tlie  inward,  subject- 
ive state  of  the  person  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made.  When 
sin  is  imputed  to  a  man  he  is  not  made  sinful ;  when  the  zeal  of 
Phinehas  was  imputed  to  him,  he  was  not  made  zealous.  When 
you  impute  theft  to  a  man,  you  do  not  make  him  a  thief.  When 
you  impute  goodness  to  a  man,  you  do  not  make  him  good.  So 
when  righteousness  is  imputed  to  the  behever,  he  does  not  thereby 
become  subjectively  righteous.  If  the  righteousness  be  adequate, 
and  if  the  imputation  be  made  on  adequate  grounds  and  by  com- 
petent authority,  the  person  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made  has 
the  right  to  be  treated  as  righteous.  And,  therefore,  in  the  fo- 
rensic, although  not  in  the  moral  or  subjective  sense,  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  does  make  the  sinner  righteous. 
That  is,  it  gives  him  a  right  to  the  full  pardon  of  all  his  sins  and 
a  claim  in  justice  to  eternal  life. 

That  this  is  the  simple  and  universally  accepted  view  of  the 
doctrine  as  held  by  all,  Protestants  at  the  Reformation,  and  by 
them  regarded  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  Gospel,  has  already  been 
sufficiently  proved  by  extracts  from  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Symbols,  and  has  never  been  disputed  by  any  candid  or  competent 
authority.  This  has  continued  to  be  the  doctrine  of  both  the 
great  branches  of  the  Protestant  Church,  so  far  as  they  pretend 
to  adhere  to  their  standards.  Schmid  ^  proves  this  by  a  whole 
catena  of  quotations  so  far  as  the  Lutheran  Church  is  concerned. 
Schweizer  ^  does  the  same  for  the  Reformed  Church.  A  few  cita- 
tions, therefore,  from  authors  of  a  recognized  representative 
character  will  suffice  as  to  this  point.  Turrettin  with  his  charac- 
teristic precision  says :  "  Cum  dicimus  Christi  justitiam  ad  jus- 
tificationem  nobis  imputari,  et  nos  per  justitiam  illam  imputatam 
justos  esse  coram  Deo,  et  non  per  justitiam  ullam  quse  nobis  in- 
hasreat ;  Nihil  aliud  volumus,  quam  obedientiam  Christi  Deo  Patri 
nomine  nostro  praBStitam,  ita  nobis  a  Deo  donari,  ut  vere  nostra 
censeatur,  eamque  esse  unicam  et  solam  illam  justitiam  propter 
quam,  et  cujus  merito,  absolvamur  a  reatu  peccatorum  nostrum, 
et  jus  ad  vitam  obtinemus ;  nee  ullam  in  nobis  esse  justitiam, 
aut  ulla  bona  opera,  quibus  beneficia  tanta  promereamur,  quae 
ferre  possint  severum  judicii  divini  examen,  si  Deus  juxta  legis 
suae  rigorem  nobiscum  agere  vellet ;  nihil  nos  illi  posse  opponere, 

1  Die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherlschen  Kirche,  dargestdlt  und  aus  den  Quellen 
belerjt,  3d  edit.  Frankfort  and  Erlangen,  1853. 

2  Die  Glaiibenslehre  der  evangelisch-reformirten  Kirche  dargestdlt  und  aus  den  Quellen 
belegt,  Zurich,  IHU,  1847. 

VOL.  ui.  10 


146  PART  III.    Ch.  XVIL  — justification. 

nisi  Christi  meritum  et  satisf actionem,  in  qua  sola,  peccatorum 
conscientia  territi,  tutum  adversus  iram  divinam  perfugium,  et 
animarum  nostrarum  pacem  invenire  possumus."  ^ 

On  the  following  page  he  refers  to.  Bellarmin,-  who  says,  "  Si 
[Protestantes  hoc]  solum  vellent,  nobis  imputari  Christi  merita, 
quia  [a  Deo]  nobis  donata  sunt,  et  possumus  ea  [Deo]  Patri 
offere  pro  peccatis  nostris,  quoniam  Christus  suscepit  super  se  onus 
satisfaciendi  pro  nobis,  nosque  Deo  Patri  reconcihandi,  recta  esset 
eorum  sententia."  On  this  Turrettin  remarks,  "  Atqui  nihil  aliud 
volumus ;  Nam  quod  addit,  nos  velle  '  ita  imputari  nobis  Christi 
justitiam,  ut  per  eam  formaUter  justi  nominemur  et  simus,'  hoc 
gratis  et  falso  supponit,  ex  perversa  et  praepostera  sua  hypothesi 
de  justificatione  morali.  Sed  quaeritur.  Ad  qiiid  imputatio  ista 
fiat  ?  An  ad  justificationem  et  vitam,  ut  nos  pertendimus.  An 
vero  tantum  ad  gratise  internee  et  justitise  inhserentis  infusionem, 
ut  illi  volunt ;  Id  est,  an  ita  imputentur  et  communicentur  nobis 
merita  Christi,  ut  sint  causa  meritoria  sola  nostrte  justificationis, 
nee  ulla  alia  detur  justitia  propter  quam  absolvamur  in  conspectu 
Dei ;  quod  volumus ;  An  vero  ita  imputentur,  ut  sint  conditiones 
causae  formalis,  id.  justititB  inhaBrentis,  ut  ea  homo  donari  possit, 
vel  causaa  extrinsecse,  quae  mereantur  infusionem  justitiae,  per 
quam  justificatur  homo  ;  ut  ita  non  meritum  Christi  proprie,  sed 
justitia  inhrerens  per  meritum  Christi  acquisita,  sic  causa  propria 
et  vera,  propter  quam  homo  justificatur  ;  quod  ilh  statuunt."  It 
may  be  remarked  in  passing  that  according  to  the  Protestant  doc- 
trine there  is  properly  no  "  formal  cause  "  of  justification.  The 
righteousness  of  Chi'ist  is  the  meritorious,  but  not  the  formal  cause 
of  the  sinner's  being  pronounced  righteous.  A  formal  cause  is 
that  which  constitutes  the  inherent,  subjective  nature  of  a  person 
or  thing.  The  formal  cause  of  a  man's  being  good,  is  goodness  ; 
of  his  being  holy,  holiness  ;  of  his  being  wicked,  wickedness.  The 
formal  cause  of  a  rose's  being  red,  is  redness  ;  and  of  a  wall's  being 
white,  is  whiteness.  As  we  are  not  rendered  inherently  righteous 
by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  it  is  hardly  correct  to  say  that  his 
righteousness  is  the  formal  cause  of  our  being  righteous.  Owen, 
and  other  eminent  writers  do  indeed  often  use  the  expression  re- 
ferred to,  but  they  take  the  word  "  formal "  out  of  its  ordinary 
scholastic  sense. 

Campegius  Vitringa'^  says:  "Tenendum  est  certissimum  hoo 
fundamentum,  quod  justificare  sit  vocabulum  forense,  notetque  in 

1  Instltutlo,  loc.  XVI.  iii.  9,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.   570. 

2  De  Justijicattune,  ii.  7;   Disputatinnes,  Paris,  1008,  p.  801,  b. 

*  Doctrina  Christianm  ■Helifjionis,  iii.  xvi.  2;  Leyden,  1764,  vol.  iil.  p.  254,  if. 


§  5.]  IMPUTATION   OF    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  147 

Scriptnra  actum  judicis,  quo  causam  alicujus  in  judicio  justam 
esse  declarat ;  sive  eum  a  crimine,  cujus  postulatus  est,  absolvat 
(quffi  est  genuina,  et  maxime  propria  vocis  significatio),  sive  etiam 
jus  ad  banc,  vel  illam  rem  ei  sententia  addicat,  et  adjudicet." 

"  17.  Per  justificationem  peccatoris  intelligimus  actum  Dei 
Patris,  ut  judicis,  quo  peccatorem  credentem,  natura  filium  ir^e, 
neque  ullum  jus  ex  se  liabentem  bona  coelestia  petendi,  declarat 
immunem  esse  ab  omni  reatu,  et  condemnatione,  adoptat  in  filium, 
et  in  eum  ex  gratia  confert  jus  ad  suam  communionem,  cum  sa- 
lute asterna,  bonisque  omnibus  cum  ea  conjunctis,  postulandi." 

"  27.  Teneamus  nullam  carnem  in  se  posse  reperire  et  ex  se  pro- 
ducere  causam,  et  fundamentum  justificationis.  29.  Quoerendum 
igitur  id,  propter  quod  peccator  justificatur,  extra  peccatorem  in 
obedientia  Filii  Dei,  quam  pr^estitit  Patri  in  bumana  natura  ad 
mortem,  imo  ad  mortem  crucis,  et  ad  quam  praestandara  se  ob- 
strinxerat  in  sponsione.  (Rom.  v.  19.)"  "  32.  Hajc  [obedien- 
tia] imputatur  peccatori  a  Deo  judice  ex  gratia  juxta  jus  sponsi- 
onis,  de  quo  ante  dictum." 

Owen  in  bis  elaborate  work  on  justification,^  proves  that  the 
word  to  justify,  "  whether  the  act  of  God  towards  men,  or  of  men 
towards  God,  or  of  men  among  themselves,  or  of  one  towards 
another,  be  exjjressed  thereby,  is  always  used  in  a  '  forensic ' 
sense,  and  does  not  denote  a  physical  operation,  transfusion,  or 
transmutation."  He  thus  "winds  up  the  discussion  :  "  Wherefore 
as  condemnation  is  not  the  infusing  of  a  habit  of  wickedness  into 
him  that  is  condemned,  nor  the  making  of  him  to  be  inherently 
wicked,  who  Avas  before  righteous,  but  the  passing  a  sentence 
upon  a  man  with  respect  to  his  wickedness  ;  no  more  is  justifi- 
cation the  change  of  a  person  from  inherent  unrighteousness  to 
righteousness,  by  the  infusion  of  a  principle  of  grace,  but  a  sen- 
tential declaration  of  him  to  be  righteous."  ^ 

The  gi'ound  of  this  justification  in  the  case  of  the  believing 
sinner  is  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  This  is 
set  forth  at  length.^  "  The  judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
herein,"  he  says,  "  is  known  to  all  and  must  be  confessed,  unless 
we  intend  by  vain  cavils  to  increase  and  perpetuate  contentions. 
Especially  the  Church  of  England  is  in  her  doctrine  express  as  to 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of.  Christ,  both  active  and 
passive,  as  it  is  usually  distinguished.  This  has  been  of  late  so 
fully  manifested  out  of  her  authentic  writings,  that  is,  the  '  Ar- 

1  Justification,  chap.  4,  edit.  Philadelphia,  184:1,  p.  144. 

2  Ibid.  p.  154.  3  Ibid.  chap.  7,  p.  187. 


148  FART  in.     Ch.   XVn.— JUSTIFICATION. 

tides  of  Religion  '  and  '  Books  of  Homilies,'  and  other  writings 
publicly  authorized,  that  it  is  altogether  needless  to  give  any  fur- 
ther demonstration  of  it." 

President  Edwards  in  his  sermon  on  justification  ^  sets  forth 
the  Protestant  doctrine  in  all  its  fulness.  "  To  suppose,"  he  says, 
"  that  a  man  is  justified  by  his  own  virtue  or  obedience,  derogates 
from  the  honour  of  the  Mediator,  and  ascribes  that  to  man's  virtue 
that  belongs  only  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  puts  man  in 
Christ's  stead,  and  makes  him  his  own  saviour,  in  a  respect  in 
which  Christ  only  is  the  Saviour  :  and  so  it  is  a  doctrine  contrary 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  to  abase  man,  and 
to  ascribe  all  the  glory  of  our  salvation  to  Christ  the  Redeemer. 
It  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  which  is  a  gospel  doctrine.  Here  I  would  (1.)  Ex- 
plain what  we  mean  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness. 
(2.)  Prove  the  thing  intended  by  it  to  be  true.  (3.)  Show  that 
this  doctrine  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  our  being 
justified  by  our  own  virtue  or  sincere  obedience. 

"  First.  I  would  explain  what  we  mean  by  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness.  Sometimes  the  expression  is  taken  by  our 
divines  in  a  larger  sense,  for  the  imputation  of  all  that  Christ  did 
and  suffered  for  our  redemption,  whereby  we  are  free  from  guilt, 
and  stand  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  so  implies  the  im- 
putation both  of  Christ's  satisfaction  and  obedience.  But  here 
I  intend  it  in  a  stricter  sense,  for  the  imputation  of  that  right- 
eousness or  moral  goodness  that  consists  in  the  obedience  of 
Christ.  And  by  that  righteousness  being  imputed  to  us,  is 
meant  no  other  than  this,  that  that  righteousness  of  Christ  is  ac- 
cepted for  us,  and  admitted  instead  of  that  perfect  inherent  right- 
eousness that  ought  to  be  in  ourselves  :  Christ's  perfect  obedi- 
ence shall  be  reckoned  to  our  account  so  that  we  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  it,  as  though  we  had  performed  it  ourselves  :  and  so  we 
suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal  life  is  given  us  as  the  reward  of 
this  righteousness."  In  the  same  connection,  he  asks,  "  Why  is 
there  any  more  absurdity  in  supposing  that  Christ's  obedience  is 
imputed  to  us,  than  that  his  satisfaction  is  imputed  ?  If  Christ  • 
has  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  and  in  our  stead,  then 
it  will  follow  that  his  suffering  that  penalty  is  imputed  to  us,  i.  e., 
that  it  is  accepted  for  us,  and  in  our  stead,  and  is  reckoned  tc 
our  account,  as  though  we  had  suffered  it.  But  why  may  not  his 
obeying  the  law  of  God  be  as  rationally  reckoned  to  our  account, 

1  Serm.  IV.   Works,  edit.  N.  Y.  13G8,  vol.  iv.  pp.  91,  92. 


§5.]  IMPUTATION   OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  149 

as  Ms  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law."  He  then  goes  on  to 
argue  that  there  is  the  same  necessity  for  the  one  as  for  the  other. 

Dr.  Shedd  says,  "  A  second  difference  between  the  Anselinic 
and  the  Protestant  soteriology  is  seen  in  the  formal  distinction 
of  Christ's  work  into  his  active  and  his  passive  righteousness. 
By  his  passive  righteousness  is  meant  his  expiatory  sufferings, 
by  which  He  satisfied  the  claims  of  justice,  and  by  his  active 
righteousness  is  meant  his  obedience  to  the  law  as  a  rule  of 
life  and  conduct.  It  was  contended  by  those  who  made  this  dis- 
tinction, that  the  purpose  of  Christ  as  the  vicarious  substitute 
was  to  meet  the  entire  demands  of  the  law  for  the  sinner.  But 
the  law  requires  present  and  perfect  obedience,  as  well  as  satis- 
faction for  past  disobedience.  The  law  is  not  completely  fulfilled 
by  the  endurance  of  penalty  only.  It  must  also  be  obeyed. 
Christ  both  endured  the  penalty  due  to  man  for  disobedience, 
and  perfectly  obeyed  the  law  for  him  ;  so  that  He  was  a  vicarioua 
substitute  in  reference  to  both  the  precept  and  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  By  his  active  obedience  He  obeyed  the  law,  and  by  his 
passive  obedience  He  endured  the  penalty.  In  this  way  his  vica- 
rious work  is  complete."  ^ 

The  earlier  Symbols  of  the  Reformation  do  not  make  this  dis- 
tinction. So  far  as  the  Lutheran  Church  is  concerned,  it  first 
appears  in  the  "Form  of  Concord"  (A.  D.  1576).  Its  statement 
is  as  follows  :  "  That  righteousness  which  is  imputed  to  faith,  or  to 
believers,  of  mere  grace,  is  the  obedience,  suffering,  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  by  Avhich  He  satisfied  the  law  for  us,  and  expiated 
our  sins.  For  since  Christ  was  not  only  man,  but  truly  God  and 
man  in  one  undivided  person,  He  was  no  more  subject  to  the  law 
than  He  was  to  suffering  and  death  (if  his  person,  merely,  be 
taken  into  account),  because  He  was  the  Lord  of  the  law. 
Hence,  not  only  that  obedience  to  God  his  Father  which  He  ex- 
hibited in  his  passion  and  death,  but  also  that  obedience  which  He 
exhibited  in  voluntarily  subjecting  Himself  to  the  law  and  fulfil- 
ling it  for  our  sakes,  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness,  so  that 
God  on  account  of  the  total  obedience  which  Christ  accomplished 
(praestitit)  for  our  sake  before  his  heavenly  Father,  both  in  acting 
and  in  suffering,  in  life  and  in  death,  may  remit  our  sins  to  us, 
regard  us  as  good  and  righteous,  and  give  us  eternal  salvation."  * 
In  this  point  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  standards  agree. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  distinction  between  the 

1  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  New  York,  1863,  vol.  ii.  p.  341. 

2  Hase,  Libri  Sy inhvlici,  3d.  edit.,  Leipzig,  1846,  pp.  084,  685. 


150  PART  III.     Ch.   XVII.  —  justification. 

active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ  is,  in  one  view,  nnimpor- 
tant.  As  Christ  obeyed  in  suffering,  his  sufferings  were  as  much 
a  part  of  his  obedience  as  his  observance  of  the  precepts  of  the 
law.  The  Scriptures  do  not  expressly  make  this  distinction,  as 
they  include  everything  that  Christ  did  for  our  redemption  under 
the  term  righteousness  or  obedience.  The  distinction  becomes 
important  only  when  it  is  denied  that  his  moral  obedience  is  any 
part  of  the  righteousness  for  which  the  believer  is  justified,  or 
that  his  whole  work  in  making  satisfaction  consisted  in  expiation 
or  bearing  the  penalty  of  the  law.  This  is  contrary  to  Scripture, 
and  vitiates  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  presented  in  the 
Bible. 

§  6.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

That  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  above  stated  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  word  of  God  appears  from  the  following  considerations  :  — 

1.  The  word  Si»<aio'w,  as  has  been  sho^\Ti,  means  to  declare  StVatos. 
No  one  can  be  truthfully  pronounced  SiKaio?  to  whom  oiKatoo-i'i-7 
camiot  rightfully  be  ascribed.  The  sinner  (ex  vi  verbi)  has  no 
righteousness  of  his  oyn\.  God,  therefore,  imputes  to  him  a 
righteousness  which  is  not  his  own.  The  righteousness  thus  im- 
puted is  declared  to  be  the  righteousness  of  God,  of  Christ,  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith.  This  is  almost  in  so  many  words 
the  declaration  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject.  As  the  question, 
What  is  the  method  of  justification  ?  is  a  Biblical  question,  it 
must  be  decided  exegetically,  and  not  by  arguments  drawn  from 
assumed  principles  of  reason.  We  are  not  at  liberty  to  say  that 
the  righteousness  of  one  man  cannot  be  imputed  to  anotlier  ;  that 
this  would  involve  a  mistake  or  absurdity  ;  that  God's  justice  does 
not  demand  a  righteousness  such  as  the  law  prescribes,  as  the  con- 
dition of  justification  ;  that  He  may  pardon  and  save  as  a  father 
without  any  consideration,  unless  it  be  that  of  repentance  ;  that 
it  is  inconsistent  with  his  grace  that  the  demands  of  justice  should 
be  met  before  justification  is  granted  ;  that  this  view  of  justifica- 
tion makes  it  a  sham,  a  calling  a  man  just,  when  he  is  not  just, 
etc.  All  this  amounts  to  notliing.  It  all  pertains  to  that  wisdom 
which  is  foolishness  with  God.  All  we  have  to  do  is  to  deter* 
mine,  (1.)  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  to  justify  as  used  in 
Scripture  ?  (2.)  On  what  ground  does  the  Bible  affirm  that  God 
pronounces  the  ungodly  to  be  just  ?  If  the  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions be  what  the  Church  in  all  ages,  and  especially  the  Church 
of  the  Reformation  has  given,  then  we  should  rest  satisfied.  The 
Apostle  in  express  terms  says  that  God  imputes  righteousness  to 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  151 

the  sinner.  (Rom.  iv.  6,  24.)  By  righteousness  every  one  admits 
is  meant  that  which  makes  a  man  righteous,  that  which  the  law 
demands.  It  does  not  consist  in  the  sinner's  own  obedience,  or 
moral  excellence,  for  it  is  said  to  be  "  withoift  works  ;  "  and  it  is 
declared  that  no  man  can  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  his  own 
character  or  conduct.  Neither  does  this  righteousness  consist  in 
faith  ;  for  it  is  "  of  faith,"  "  through  faith,"  «  by  faith."  We 
are  never  said  to  be  justified  on  account  of  faith.  Neither  is  it  a 
righteousness,  or  form  of  moral  excellence  springing  from  faith, 
or  of  which  f^ith  is  the  source  or  proximate  cause ;  because  it  is 
declared  to  be  the  righteousness  of  God  ;  a  righteousness  which  is 
revealed  ;  which  is  offered  ;  which  must  be  accepted  as  a  gift. 
(Rom.  V.  17.)  It  is  declared  to  be  the  righteousness  of  Christ ; 
his  obedience.  (Rom.  v.  19.)  It  is,  therefore,  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  his  perfect  obedience  in  doing  and  suffering  the  will  of 
God,  which  is  imputed  to  the  believer,  and  on  the  ground  of  which 
the  believer,  although  in  himself  ungodly,  is  pronounced  righteous, 
and  therefore  free  from  the  curse  of  the  law  and  entitled  to  eternal 
hfe. 

The  Apostle^ s  Argument. 

2.  All  the  points  above  stated  are  not  only  clearly  affirmed  by 
the  Apostle  but  they  are  also  set  forth  in  logical  order,  and  elabor- 
ately sustained  and  vindicated  in  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Romans. 
The  Apostle  begins  with  the  declaration  that  the  Gospel  "  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation."  It  is  not  thus  divinel}^  efficacious 
because  of  the  purity  of  its  moral  precepts  ;  nor  because  it  brings 
immortality  to  light ;  nor  because  it  sets  before  us  the  perfect 
example  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  nor  because  it  assures  us  of 
the  love  of  God ;  nor  because  of  the  elevating,  sanctifying,  hfe- 
giving  influence  by  which  it  is  attended.  There  is  something  pre- 
liminary to  all  this.  The  first  and  indispensable  requisite  to 
salvation  is  that  men  should  be  righteous  before  God.  They  are 
under  his  wrath  and  curse.  Until  justice  is  satisfied,  until  God  is 
reconciled,  there  is  no  possibility  of  any  moral  influence  being  of 
any  avail.  Therefore  the  Apostle  says  that  the  power  of  the 
Gospel  is  due  to  the  fact  that  "  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God 
revealed."  This  cannot  mean  the  goodness  of  God,  for  such  is 
not  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  cannot  in  this  connection  mean 
his  justice,  because  it  is  a  righteousness  which  is  "  of  faith  ;  "  be- 
cause the  justice  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  and  to  all  men ; 
because  the  revelation  of  justice  terrifies  and  drives  away  from 
God  ;  because  what  is  here  called  the  righteousness  of  God,  is 


152  TART  m.   Ch.  xyil— justification. 

elsewhere  contrasted  mtli  our  "  owii  rigliteousness  "  (Rom.  x.  3  ; 
Phil.  iii.  9)  ;  and  because  it  is  declared  to  be  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  (Rom.  v.  18),  which  is  (Rom.  v.  19)  explained  by  his 
"obedience,"  and  in  Romans  v.  9  and  elsewhere  declared  to  be 
"  his  blood."  This  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  righteousness 
of  God,  because  Christ  is  God  ;  because  God  has  provided,  re- 
vealed, and  offers  it ;  and  because  it  avails  before  God  as  a  suf- 
ficient ground  on  which  He  can  declare  the  believing  sinner  right- 
eous. Herein  lies  the  saving  power  of  the  Gospel.  The  ques- 
tion, How  shall  man  be  just  with  God  ?  had  been  sounding  in  the 
ears  of  men  from  the  beginning.  It  never  had  been  answered. 
Yet  it  must  be  answered  or  there  can  be  no  hope  of  salvation.  It 
is  answered  in  the  Gospel,  and  therefore  the  Gospel  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth ;  i.  e.,  to  every 
one,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  bond  or  free,  good  or  bad,  who,  in- 
stead of  going  about  to  establish  his  own  righteousness,  submits 
himself  in  joyful  confidence  to  the  righteousness  which  his  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  has  wrought  out  for  sinners,  and  which 
is  freely  offered  to  them  in  the  Gospel  without  money  and  without 
price. 

This  is  Paul's  tlieme,  which  he  proceeds  to  unfold  and  estab- 
lish, as  has  been  already  stated  under  a  previous  head.  He  begins 
by  asserting,  as  indisputably  true  from  the  revelation  of  God  in 
the  constitution  of  our  nature,  that  God  is  just,  that  He  Avill 
punish  sin ;  that  He  cannot  pronounce  him  righteous  who  is  not 
righteous.  He  then  shows  from  experience  and  from  Scripture, 
first  as  regards  the  Gentiles,  then  as  regards  the  Jews,  that  there 
is  none  righteous,  no  not  one  ;  that  tlie  whole  world  is  guilty  be- 
fore God.    There  is  therefore  no  difference,  since  all  have  sinned. 

Since  the  righteousness  which  the  law  requires  cannot  be  found 
in  the  sinner  nor  be  rendered  by  him,  God  has  revealed  another 
righteousness  (Rom.  iii.  21);  "the  righteousness  of  God," 
granted  to  every  one  who  believes.  Men  are  not  justified  for 
what  they  are  or  for  what  they  do,  but  for  what  Christ  has  done 
for  them.  God  has  set  Him  forth  as  a  propitiation  for  sin,  in  order 
that  He  might  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  them  that  believe. 

The  Apostle  teaches  that  pucli  has  been  the  method  of  justifi- 
cation from  the  beginning.  It  was  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  There  had  never,  since  the  fall,  been  any  othei-  way 
of  justification  possible  for  men.  As  God  justified  Abraham 
because  he  believed  in  the  promise  of  redemption  through  the 
Messiah ;  so  He  justifies  those  now  who  believe  in  the  fulfilment 


§6.]   .  PROOF    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  153 

of  that  promise.  (Rom.  iv.  3,  9,  24.)  It  was  not  Abraham's 
believing  state  of  mind  that  was  taken  for  righteousness.  It  is 
not  faith  in  the  behever  now  ;  not  faith  as  a  virtue,  or  as  a  source 
of  a  new  life,  which  renders  us  righteous.  It  is  faith  in  a  spe- 
cific promise.  Righteousness,  says  the  Apostle,  is  imputed  to  us, 
"  if  we  believe  on  Him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead."  (Rom.  iv.  24.)  Or,  as  he  expresses  it  in  Romans  x.  9,  "If 
fchou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  be- 
lieve in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
thou  shalt  be  saved."  The  promise  which  Abraham  believed,  is 
the  promise  which  we  believe  (Gal.  iii.  14)  ;  and  the  relation 
of  faith  to  justification,  in  his  case,  is  precisely  what  it  is  in  ours. 
He  and  we  are  justified  simply  because  we  trust  in  the  Messiah 
for  our  salvation.  Hence,  as  the  Apostle  says,  the  Scriptures  are 
full  of  thanksgiving  to  God  for  gratuitous  pardon,  for  free  justifi- 
cation, for  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  those  who  have  no 
righteousness  of  their  own.  This  method  of  justification,  he  goes 
on  to  show,  is  adapted  to  all  mankind.  God  is  not  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  It  secures  peace  and  rec- 
onciliation ^vith  God.  (Rom.  v.  1-3.)  It  renders  salvation  cer- 
tain, for  if  we  are  saved  not  by  what  we  are  in  ourselves,  but  for 
what  Christ  has  done  for  us,  we  may  be  sure  that  if  we  are  "  jus- 
tified by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him." 
(Rom.  V.  9.)  This  method  of  justification,  he  further  shows,  and 
this  only,  secures  sanctification,  namely,  holiness  of  heart  and  life. 
It  is  only  those  who  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son,  that  are  "  saved  by  his  life."  (v.  10.)  This  idea  lie  expands 
and  vindicates  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  this  Epistle. 

The  Parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ. 

3.  Not  content  with  this  clear  and  formal  statement  of  the 
truth  that  sinners  can  be  justified  only  through  the  imputation  of 
a  righteousness  not  their  own  ;  and  that  the  righteousness  thus 
imputed  is  the  righteousness  (active  and  passive  if  that  distinc- 
tion be  insisted  upon)  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  he  proceeds  to 
illustrate  this  doctrine  by  drawing  a  parallel  between  Adam  and 
Christ.  The  former,  he  says,  was  a  type  of  the  latter.  There  is 
an  analogy  between  our  relation  to  Adam  and  our  relation  to 
Christ.  We  are  so  united  to  Adam  that  his  first  transgression 
was  the  ground  of  the  sentence  of  condemnation  being  passed  on 
all  mankind,  and  on  account  of  that  condemnation  we  derive  from 
him  a  corrupt  nature  so  that  all  mankind  descending  from  hiia 


154  PART  in.   Ch.  XVII.  —  justification. 

by  ordinary  generation,  come  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  spirit- 
ual death.     In  like  manner  we  are  so  united  to  Christ,  when  we 
believe,  that  his  obedience  is  the  ground  on  which  a  sentence  of 
justification  passes  upon  all  thus  in  Him,  and  in  consequence  of 
that  sentence  they  derive  from  Him  a  new,  holy,  divine,  and  im- 
perishable principle  of  spiritual  life.     These  truths  are  expressed 
in  explicit  terms.     "  The  judgment  was  by  one  (offence)  to  con- 
demnation, but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification." 
(Rom.  V.  16.)     "  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.     For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."   (v.  18, 
19.)     These  two  great  truths,  namely,  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  and  the    imputation  of  Christ's    righteousness,  have  graven 
themselves  on  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  universal.     They 
have  been  reviled,  misrepresented,  and  denounced  by  theologians, 
but  they  have  stood  their  ground  in  the  faith  of  God's  people, 
just  as  the  primary  truths  of  reason  have  ever  retained  control 
over  the  mass  of  men,  in  spite  of  all  the  speculations  of  philoso- 
phers.    It  is  not  meant  that  the  truths  just  mentioned  have  al- 
ways been  expressed  in  the   terms   just  given  ;    but  the  truths 
themselves  have  been,  and  still  are  held  by  the  people  of  God, 
wherever  found,  among  the  Greeks,  Latins,  or  Protestants.     The 
fact  that  the  race  fell  in  Adam  ;  that  the  evils  which  come  upon 
us  on  account  of  his  transgression  are  penal ;  and  that  men  are 
born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation,  are  outstanding  facts  of 
Scripture  and  experience,  and  are  avowed  every  time  the  sac- 
rament of  baptism  is  administered  to  an  infant.     No  less  univer- 
sal is  the  conviction  of  the  other  great  truth.     It  is  implied  in 
every  act  of  saving  faith  which  includes  trust  in  what  Christ  has 
done  for  us  as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  as  opposed 
to  anything  done  by  us  or  wrought  in  us.     As  a  single  proof  of 
the  hold  which  this  conviction  has  on  the  Christian  consciousness, 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  ancient  direction  for  the  visitation 
of  the  sick,  attributed  to  Anselm,  but  of  dovibtful   authorshij) : 
"  Dost  thou  believe  that  thou  canst  not  be  saved,  but  by  the 
death  of  Christ  ?  The  sick  man  answereth.  Yes.     Then  let  it  be 
paid  unto  him.  Go  to,  then,  and  whilst  thy  soul  abideth  in  thee, 
put  all  thy  confidence  in  this  death  alone,  place  thy  trust  in  no 
other  thing,  commit  thyself  wholly  to  this  death,  cover  thyself 
wholly  with  this  alone,  cast  thyself  wholly  on  this  de;ith,  wi-ap 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  155 

thyself  wholly  in  this  death.  And  if  God  would  judge  thee,  say, 
Lord,  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  me  and 
thy  judgment ;  and  otherwise  I  will  not  contend,  or  enter  into 
judgment  with  thee.  And  if  He  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  thou 
art  a  sinner,  say,  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be- 
tween me  and  my  sins.  If  He  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast 
deserved  damnation,  say,  Lord,  I  put  the  death  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  between  thee  and  all  my  sins  ;  and  I  offer  his  merits 
for  my  o^vn,  which  I  should  have,  and  have  not.  If  He  say  that 
He  is  angry  with  thee :  say.  Lord,  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  between  me  and  thy  anger."  ^ 

Such  being  the  real  and  only  foundation  of  a  sinner's  hope 
towards  God,  it  is  of  the  last  importance  that  it  should  not  only 
be  practically  held  by  the  people,  but  that  it  should  also  be 
clearly  presented  and  maintained  by  the  clergy.  It  is  not  what 
we  do  or  are,  but  solely  what  Christ  is  and  has  done  that  can 
avail  for  our  justification  before  the  bar  of  God. 

Other  Passages  teacJii7ig  the  same  Doctrine. 

4.  This  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  his  righteousness  is  the  judicial 
ground  of  the  believer's  justification,  is  not  only  formally  and 
argunientatively  presented  as  in  the  passages  cited,  but  it  is  con- 
stantly asserted  or  implied  in  the  word  of  God.  The  Apostle 
argues,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that 
every  assertion  or  promise  of  gratuitous  forgiveness  of  sin  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures  involves  this  doctrine.  He  proceeds  on 
the  assumption  that  God  is  just  ;  that  He  demands  a  righteous- 
ness of  those  whom  He  justifies.  If  they  have  no  righteousness  of 
their  own,  one  on  just  grounds  must  be  imputed  to  them.  If, 
therefore,  He  forgives  sin,  it  must  be  tliat  sin  is  covered,  that 
justice  has  been  satisfied.  "  David,  also,"  he  says,  "  describeth 
the  blessedness  of  the  man,  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteous- 
ness without  works  ;  saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities 
are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to 
whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  (Rom.  iv.  6-8.)  Not  to 
impute  sin  implies  the  imputation  of  righteousness. 

In  Romans  v.  9,  we  are  said  to  be  "  justified  by  his  blood." 
In  Romans  iii.  25,  God  is  said  to  have  set  Him  forth  as  a  propi- 
tiation for  sin,  that  He  might  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly. 
As  to  justify  does  not  mean  to  pardon,  but  judicially  to  pro- 

1  See  "  The  General  Considerations,"  prefixed  by  Owen  to  his  work  ^n  Justificfition. 


156  PART   III.     Cn.   XVII.  —  JUSTIFICATION. 

noimce  righteous,  this  passage  distinctly  asserts  that  the  work 
of  Christ  is  the  ground  on  which  the  sentence  of  justification  is 
passed.  In  Romans  x,  3,  4,  he  says  of  the  Jews,  "  They  being 
ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish 
their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the 
righteousness  of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  right- 
eousness to  every  one  that  believeth."  It  can  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned that  the  word  (8  Kaioa-wr]')  righteovisness  must  have  the 
same  meaning  in  both  members  of  the  first  of  these  verses.  If 
a  man's  "  own  righteousness  "  is  that  which  would  render  him 
righteous,  then  "  the  righteousness  of  God,"  in  this  connection, 
must  be  a  justifying  righteousness.  It  is  called  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  because,  as  said  before,  He  is  its  author.  It  is  the 
rigliteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  provided,  offered,  and  accepted 
of  God.  Here  then  are  two  righteousnesses  ;  the  one  human, 
the  other  divine  ;  the  one  valueless,  the  other  infinitely  merito- 
rious. The  folly  of  the  Jews,  and  of  thousands  since  their  day, 
consists  in  refusing  the  latter  and  trusting  to  the  former.  This 
folly  the  Apostle  makes  apparent  in  the  fourth  verse.  The  Jews 
acted  under  the  assumption  that  the  law  as  a  covenant,  that  is, 
as  prescribing  the  conditions  of  salvation,  was  still  in  force,  that 
men  were  still  bound  to  satisfy  its  demands  by  their  personal 
obedience  in  order  to  be  saved,  whereas  Christ  had  made  an  end 
of  the  law.  He  had  abolished  it  as  a  covenant,  in  order  that 
men  might  be  justified  by  faith.  Christ,  however,  has  thus  made 
an  end  of  the  law,  not  by  merely  setting  it  aside,  but  by  satisfy- 
ing its  demands.  He  delivers  us  from  its  curse,  not  by  mere 
pardon,  but  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us.  (Gal.  iii.  13.)  He 
redeems  us  from  the  law  by  being  made  under  it  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5), 
and  fulfilling  all  righteousness. 

In  Philippians  iii.  8,  9,  the  Apostle  says,  he  "  suffered  tlie 
loss  of  all  things,"  that  he  might  be  found  in  Christ,  not  having 
his  "  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  tliat  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God 
by  faith."  Here  again  one's  own  righteousness  is  contrasted 
with  that  which  is  of  God.  The  word  must  have  the  same  sense 
in  both  members.  What  Paul  trusted  to,  was  not  his  o^vn  right- 
eousness, not  his  own  subjective  goodness,  but  a  righteousness 
provided  for  him  and  received  by  faith.  De  Wette  (no  Augus- 
tinian)  on  this  passage  says,  the  righteousness  of  God  here 
means,  "  a  righteousness  received  from  God  (graciously  imputed) 
on  condition  of  faith  "  ("  die  von  Gott  empfangene  (aus  Gnaden 
zugerechnete)  Gerechtigkeit  um  des  Glaubensmllen.") 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  157 

The  Apostle  says  (1  Cor.  i.  30),  Cln-ist  "  of  God  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
demption." In  this  enumeration  sanctification  and  rigliteous- 
ness  are  distinguished.  Tlie  one  renders  us  holy  ;  the  other 
renders  us  just,  ^.  e.,  satisfies  the  demands  of  justice.  As  Christ 
is  to  us  the  source  of  inward  spiritual  life,  so  He  is  the  giver  of 
that  righteousness  which  secures  our  justification.  Justification  is 
not  referred  to  sanctification  as  its  proximate  cause  and  ground. 
On  the  contrary,  the  gift  of  righteousness  precedes  that  of  sanc- 
tification. We  are  justified  in  order  that  we  may  be  sanctified. 
The  point  here,  however,  is  that  righteousness  is  distinguished 
from  anything  and  everything  in  us  which  can  recommend  us  to 
the  favom-  of  God.  We  are  accepted,  justified,  and  saved,  not 
for  what  we  are,  but  for  what  He  has  done  in  our  behalf.  God 
"  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin ;  that  we  might 
be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  (2  Cor.  v.  21.) 
As  Christ  was  not  made  sin  m  a  moral  sense  ;  so  we  are  not  (in 
justification)  made  righteousness  in  a  moral  sense.  As  He  was 
made  sin  in  that  He  "  bare  our  sins  ;  "  so  we  are  made  righteous- 
ness in  that  we  bear  his  righteousness.  Our  sins  were  the  ju- 
dicial ground  of  his  humiliation  under  the  law  and  of  all  his 
sufferings ;  so  his  righteousness  is  the  judicial  ground  of  our 
justification.  In  other  words,  as  our  sins  were  imputed  to  Him ; 
so  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us.  If  imputation  of  sin  did 
not  render  Him  morally  corrupt ;  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness does  not  make  us  holy  or  morally  good. 

Argument  from  the  Creneral  Teachings  of  the  Bible. 
5.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  particular  passages  in  sup- 
port of  a  doctrine  wliich  pervades  the  whole  Scriptures.  The 
question  is.  What  is  the  ground  of  the  pardon  of  sin  and  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  believer  as  righteous  (in  the  forensic  or  judi- 
cial sense  of  the  word),  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  Is  it  anything  we 
do,  anything  experienced  by  us,  or  \vi"Ought  in  us ;  or,  is  it  what 
Christ  has  done  for  us  ?  The  whole  revelation  of  God  concern- 
ing the  method  of  salvation  shows  that  it  is  the  latter  and  not 
the  former.  In  the  first  place,  this  is  plain  from  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  of  the  covenant  of  redemption  betweeu  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  That  there  was  such  covenant  cannot  be 
denied  if  the  meaning  of  the  words  be  once  ?,greed  upon.  It  is 
plain  from  Scripture  that  Cluist  came  into  the  world  to  do  a 
certain  work,  on  a  certain  condition.     The  promise  made  to  Him 


158  PART  ni.   Ch.  xvil  — justification, 

was  that  a  multitude  whom  no  man  can  number,  of  the  fallen 
race  of  man,  should  be  saved.  This  included  the  pi'omise  that 
they  should  be  justified,  sanctified,  and  made  partakers  of  eter- 
nal life.  The  very  nature  of  this  transaction  involves  the  idea 
of  vicarious  substitution.  It  assumes  that  what  He  was  to  do 
was  to  be  the  ground  of  the  justification,  sanctification,  and  salva- 
tion of  his  people. 

In  the  second  place  this  is  involved  in  the  nature  of  the  work 
which  He  came  to  perform.  He  was  to  assume  our  nature,  to 
be  born  of  a  woman,  to  take  part  of  flesh  and  blood  Avith  all 
their  infirmities,  yet  without  sin.  He  was  to  take  his  place 
among  sinners ;  be  made  subject  to  the  law  which  they  are 
bound  to  obey,  and  to  endure  the  curse  which  they  had  incurred. 
If  this  be  so,  then  what  He  did  is  the  ground  of  our  salvation 
from  first  to  last ;  of  our  pardon,  of  our  reconciliation  with  God, 
of  the  acceptance  of  our  persons,  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit, 
of  our  being  transformed  into  His  image,  and  of  our  admission 
into  heaven.  "  Not  unto  us,  O  Lord,  not  unto  us,  but  unto  Thy 
name  give  glory,"  has,  therefore,  been  the  spontaneous  language 
of  every  believer  from  the  beginning  until  now. 

In  the  third  place,  the  manner  in  which  Clirist  was  to  execute 
the  work  assigned  as  described  in  the  prophets,  and  the  way  in 
which  it  was  actually  accomplished  as  described  by  Himself  and 
by  his  Apostles,  prove  that  what  He  did  and  suffered  is  the 
ground  of  our  salvation.  He  says  that  He  came  "  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many."  (Matt.  xx.  28.)  "  There  is  one  God," 
says  the  Apostle,  "  and  one  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  ;  who  gave  Himself  a  ransom  for  all."  (1  Tim. 
ii.  5,  6.)  The  deliverance  effected  by  a  ransom  has  no  reference 
to  the  character  or  conduct  of  the  redeemed.  Its  effects  are  due 
exclusively  to  the  ransom  paid.  It  is,  therefore,  to  deny  that 
Christ  was  a  ransom,  that  we  are  redeemed  by  his  blood,  to  af- 
firm that  the  proximate  ground  of  our  deliverance  from  the  curse 
of  the  law  and  of  our  introduction  into  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of 
God,  is  anything  wrought  in  us  or  done  by  us.  Again,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  Bible,  Christ  is  represented  as  a 
sacrifice.  From  the  first  institution  of  sacrifices  in  the  family  of 
Adam  ;  during  the  patriarchal  period  ;  in  all  the  varied  and  costly 
ritual  of  the  Mosaic  law  ;  in  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  ;  in 
the  clear  didactic  statements  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  taught 
with  a  constancy,  a  solemnity,  and  an  amplitude,  which  proves  it 
to  be  a  fundamental  and  vital  element  of  the  divine  plan  of  re- 


J 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  159 

demption,  that  the  Redeemer  was  to  save  his  people  by  offering 
himself  as  a  sacrifice  unto  God  in  their  behalf.  There  is  no  one 
characteristic  of  the  plan  of  salvation  more  deeply  engraven  on 
the  hearts  of  Christians,  which  more  effectually  determines  their 
inward  spiritual  life,  which  so  much  pervades  their  prayers  and 
praises,  or  Avhich  is  so  directly  the  foundation  of  their  hopes,  as 
the  sacrificial  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Strike  from  the 
Bible  the  doctrine  of  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
what  have  we  left  ?  But  if  Christ  saves  us  as  a  sacrifice,  then 
it  is  what  He  does  for  us,  his  objective  work,  and  nothing  subjec- 
tive, nothing  in  us,  which  is  the  ground  of  our  salvation,  and  of 
all  that  salvation  includes.  For  even  our  sanctification  is  due  to 
his  death.  His  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin.  (1  John  i.  7.)  It 
cleanses  from  the  guilt  of  sin  by  expiation  ;  and  secures  inward 
sanctification  by  securing  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Again,  the  whole  Bible  is  full  of  the  idea  of  substitution, 
Christ  took  our  place.  He  undertook  to  do  for  us  what  we  could 
not  do  for  ourselves.  This  is  taught  in  every  possible  way.  He 
bore  our  sins.  He  died  for  us  and  in  our  place.  He  was  made 
under  the  law  for  us.  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us.  He  was 
made  sin  for  us  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  Him.  The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  laid  on  Him.  Every- 
thing, therefore,  which  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  method  of  salva- 
tion, is  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification 
in  all  its  forms.  We  are  always  and  everywhere  referred  to  some- 
thing out  of  ourselves  as  the  ground  of  our  confidence  toward 
God. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  effects  ascribed  to  the  work  of  Christ, 
as  before  remarked,  are  such  as  do  not  flow  from  anything  in  the 
believer  himself,  but  must  be  referred  to  what  has  been  done  for 
him.  These  effects  are  expiation  of  sin,  propitiation,  the  gift 
and  indwelling  of  the  life-giving  Spirit  of  God  ;  redemption,  or 
deliverance  from  all  forms  of  evil ;  and  a  title  to  eternal  life  and 
actual  participation  in  the  exaltation,  glory,  and  blessedness  of 
the  Son  of  God.  It  is  out  of  all  question  that  these  wonderful 
effects  should  be  referred  to  what  we  personally  are  ;  to  our  merit, 
to  our  holiness,  to  our  participation  of  the  life  of  Christ.  In 
whatever  sense  these  last  words  may  be  understood,  they  refer  to 
what  we  personally  are  or  become.  His  life  in  us  is  after  all  a 
form  of  our  life.  It  constitutes  our  character.  And  it  is  self-evi- 
dent to  the  conscience  that  our  character  is  not,  and  cannot  be  the 
ground  of  our  pardon,  of  God's  peculiar  love,  or  of  our  eternal 
glory  and  blessedness  in  heaven. 


160  PART  m.   Ch.  xvn.  —  justification. 

In  tlie  fifth  place,  tlie  condition  on  whicli  our  participation  of 
the  benefits  of  redemption  is  suspended,  is  inconsistent  with  any 
form  of  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification.  We  are  never 
said  to  be  justified  on  account  of  faith,  considered  either  as  an 
act  or  as  a  principle,  as  an  exercise  or  as  a  permanent  state  of  the 
mind.  Faith  is  never  said  to  be  the  ground  of  justification.  Nor 
are  we  saved  by  faith  as  the  source  of  holiness  or  of  spiritual  life 
in  the  soul,  or  as  the  organ  of  receiving  the  infused  life  of  God. 
We  are  saved  simply  "by  "  faith,  by  receiving  and  resting  upon 
Christ  alone  for  salvation.  The  thing;  received  is  something  out 
of  ourselves.  It  is  Christ,  his  righteousness,  his  obedience,  the 
merit  of  his  blood  or  death.  We  look  to  Him.  We  flee  to  Him. 
We  lay  hold  on  Him.  We  hide  ourselves  in  Him.  We  are 
clothed  in  his  righteousness.  The  Romanist  indeed  says,  that  an 
Ethiopian  in  a  white  robe  does  not  become  white.  True,  but  a 
suit  of  armor  gives  security  from  the  sword  or  spear,  and  that  is 
•what  we  need  before  attending  to  the  state  of  our  complexion. 
We  need  protection  from  the  -wrath  of  God  in  the  first  instance. 
The  inward  transformation  of*  the  soul  into  his  likeness  is  pro- 
vided for  by  other  means. 

In  the  sixth  place  and  finally,  the  fact  that  we  are  saved  by 
grace  proves  that  the  ground  of  salvation  is  not  in  ourselves.  The 
grace  of  God,  his  love  for  the  unlovely,  for  the  guilty  and  pol- 
luted, is  represented  in  the  Bible  as  the  most  mysterious  of  the 
divhie  perfections.  It  was  hidden  in  God.  It  could  not  be  dis- 
covered by  reason,  neither  was  it  revealed  prior  to  the  redemption 
of  man.  The  specific  object  of  the  plan  of  salvation  is  the  mani- 
festation of  this  most  wonderful,  most  attractive,  and  most  glorious 
attribute  of  the  divine  nature.  Everything  connected  with  our 
salvation,  says  the  Apostle,  is  intended  for  the  "  praise  of  the 
glory  of  his  grace  "  (Eph.  i.  6.)  God  hath  quickened  us,  he  says, 
and  raised  us  up,  and  made  us  sit  together  in  heavenly  places 
in  Christ  Jesus,  in  order  "  that  in  the  ages  to  come,  he  might 
show  the  exceeding  riches  of  his  grace,  in  his  kindness  toward 
us,  through  Christ  Jesus." 

From  their  nature,  grace  and  works  are  antithetical.  The  one 
excludes  the  other.  What  is  of  grace,  is  not  of  works.  And 
by  works  in  Scripture,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  is  meant  not 
individual  acts  only,  but  states  of  mind,  anything  and  everything 
internal  of  which  moral  character  can  be  predicated.  When, 
therefore,  it  is  said  that  salvation  is  of  grace  and  not  of  works, 
it  is  thereby  said  that  it  is  not  founded  upon  anything  in  the  be- 


§  7.]  CONSEQUENCES   OF  IMPUTATION.  161 

liever  himself.  It  was  not  any  moral  excellence  in  man,  that 
determined  God  to  interpose  for  his  redemption,  while  He  left  the 
apostate  angels  to  their  fate.  This  was  a  matter  of  grace.  To 
deny  this,  and  to  make  the  provision  of  a  plan  of  salvation  for 
man  a  matter  of  justice,  is  in  such  direct  contradiction  to  every- 
thing in  the  Bible,  that  it  hardly  ever  has  been  openly  asserted. 
The  gift  of  his  Son  for  the  redemption  of  man  is  ever  represented 
as  the  most  wonderful  display  of  unmerited  love.  That  some  and 
not  all  men  are  actually  saved,  is  expressly  declared  to  be  not  of 
works,  not  on  account  of  anything  distinguishing  favourably  the 
one  class  from  the  other,  but  a  matter  of  pure  grace.  When  a 
sinner  is  pardoned  and  restored  to  the  favour  of  God,  this  again  is 
declared  to  be  of  grace.  If  of  grace  it  is  not  founded  upon  any- 
thing in  the  sinner  himself.  Now  as  the  Scriptures  not  only 
teach  that  the  plan  of  salvation  is  thus  gratuitous  in  its  incep- 
tion, execution,  and  application,  but  also  insist  upon  this  charac- 
teristic of  the  plan  as  of  vital  importance,  and  even  go  so  far  as 
to  teach  that  unless  we  consent  to  be  saved  by  grace,  we  cannot 
be  saved  at  all,  it  of  necessity  follows  that  the  doctrine  of  sub- 
jective justification  is  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Bible. 
That  doctrine  in  all  its  forms  teaches  that  that  which  secures 
our  acceptance  with  God,  is  something  in  ourselves,  something 
which  constitutes  character.  If  so,  then  salvation  is  not  of  grace  ; 
and  if  not  of  grace,  it  is  unattainable  by  sinners. 

§  7.   The   Consequences  of  the  Imputation  of  Righteousness. 

It  is  frequently  said  that  justification  consists  in  the  pardon  of 
sin  and  in  the  imputation  of  righteousness.  This  mode  of  state- 
ment is  commonly  adopted  by  Lutheran  theologians.  This  exhi- 
bition of  the  doctrine  is  founded  upon  the  sharp  distinction  made 
in  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  between  the  passive  and  active  obe- 
dience of  Christ.  To  the  former  is  referred  the  remission  of  the 
penalty  due  to  us  for  sin  ;  to  the  latter  our  title  to  eternal  life. 
The  Scriptures,  however,  do  not  make  this  distinction  so  promi- 
nent. Our  justification  as  a  whole  is  sometimes  referred  to  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  sometimes  to  his  obedience.  This  is  intel- 
ligible because  the  crowning  act  of  his  obedience,  and  that  with- 
out which  all  else  had  been  unavailing,  was  his  laying  do^vn  his 
hfe  for  us.  It  is,  perhaps,  more  correct  to  say  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  including  all  He  did  and  suffered  in  our  stead,  ia 
imputed  to  the  believer  as  the  ground  of  his  justification,  and 
that  the  consequences  of  this  imputation  are,  first,  the  remission 

VOL.  III.  11 


162  PAiiT  III.     Cii.   XVII.  —  JUSTIFICATION. 

of  sin,  and  secondly,  the  acceptance  of  the  believer  as  righteous. 
And  if  righteous,  then  he  is  entitled  to  be  so  regarded  and  treated. 
By  the  remission  of  sin  Romanists  understand  the  removal  of 
the  pollution  of  sin.  So  that  their  definition  of  justification  as 
consisting  in  the  remission  of  sin  and  infusion  of  righteousness,  is 
only  a  statement  of  the  negative  and  positive  aspects  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  i.  e.,  putting  off  the  old  man  and  putting  on  the  new- 
man.  The  effect  of  remission  is  constantly  declared  to  be  that 
nothing  of  the  nature  of  sin  remains  in  the  soul.  The  Council  of 
Trent  says,  "  Justificatio  ....  non  est  sola  peccatorum  remissio, 
sed  et  sanctificatio,  et  renovatio  interioris  hominis  per  volunta- 

riam  susceptionem  gratiae  et  donorum Quanquam  nemo 

possit  esse  Justus,  nisi  cui  merita  passionis  Domini  nostri  Jgsu 
Clmsti  communicantur :  id  tamen  in  hac  impii  justificatione  fit, 
dum  ejusdem  sanctissimse  passionis  meritoper  Spiritum  Sanctum 
caritas  Dei  diffunditur  in  cordibus  eorum,  qui  justificantur,  atque 
ipsis  inhffiret."  "  Quibus  verbis  justificationis  impii  descriptio 
insmuatur,  ut  sit  translatio  ab  eo  statu,  in  quo  homo  nascitur  filius 
primi  Adic,  in  statum  gratiae  et  adoptionis  filiorum  Dei,  per  secun- 
dum Adam  Jesum  Christum,  salvatorem  nostrum :  qua?  quidem 
translatio  post  evangelium  promulgatum  sine  lavacro  regenera- 
tionis,  aut  ejus  voto  fieri  non  potest."  ^  By  "  status  gratiae  "  in 
this  definition  is  not  meant  a  state  of  favour,  but  a  state  of  sub- 
jective grace  or  holiness  ;  because  in  other  places  and  most  com- 
monly justification  is  said  to  consist  in  the  infusion  of  grace.  In 
this  definition,  therefore,  the  pardon  of  sin  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  words  is  not  included.  Bellarmin  ^  says  this  translation  into 
a  state  of  adoption  as  sons  of  God,  "  non  potest  ....  fieri,  nisi 
homo  per  remissionem  peccati  desinat  esse  impius  ;  et  per  infu- 
sionem  justitige  incipiat  esse  pius.  Sed  sicut  aer  cum  illustratur 
a  sole  per  idem  lumen,  quod  recipit,  desinit  esse  tenebrosus  et  in- 
cipit  esse  lucidus :  sic  etiam  homo  per  eandem  justitiam  sibi  a 
sole  justitiiXi  donatam  atque  infusam  desinit  esse  injustus,  delente 
videlicet  lumine  gratijfi  tenebras  peccatorum."  The  remission  of 
sin  is  therefore  defined  to  be  the  removal  of  sin.  Bellarmin  argues 
in  support  of  this  view  that  guilt  is  removed  by  holiness,  that 
guilt  is  a  relation  ;  the  relation  of  sin  to  justice.  When  the  thing 
itself  is  taken  away,  the  relation  itself  of  course  ceases.^  Hence 
remission  of  sin,  even  in  the  sense  of  pardon,  is  effected  by  the 

1  Sess.  VI.  cap.  7,  4;  Streitwolf,  Libri  SymboUci,  Gottingen,  1846,  pp.  24,  25,  22. 

2  De  Justificatione,  ii.  ii. ;  Disjmtationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  pp.  780,  e,  781,  & 
«  Be  Amissione  Gratia  et  Statu  Peccati,  v.  vii.,  Ibid.  p.  287,  a,  b. 


§  7.]  CONSEQUENCES   OF  IMPUTATION.  163 

infusion  of  righteousness,  as  darkness  is  banished  by  the  intro- 
duction of  light.  It  is  thus,  as  remarked  above,  that  guilt  is 
either  ignored,  or  reduced  to  a  minimum  by  the  Romish  theory 
of  justification.  There  is  really  no  satisfaction  of  justice  in  the 
case.  The  merits  of  Christ  avail  to  secure  for  man  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  whose  power  as  exercised  in  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  the  soul  is  made  holy,  and  by  the  introduction  of  holi- 
ness everything  of  the  nature  of  sin  is  banished,  and  all  ground 
for  the  infliction  of  punishment  is  removed.  A  scheme  so  opposed 
to  Scripture,  and  so  inconsistent  with  even  the  natural  conscience, 
cannot  be  practically  adopted  by  the  mass  of  the  peoj)le.  The 
conviction  is  too  intimate  that  the  desert  of  punishment  is  not 
removed  by  the  reformation,  or  even  by  the  regeneration  of  the 
sinner,  to  allow  the  conscience  to  be  satisfied  with  any  scheme  of 
salvation  which  does  not  provide  for  the  expiation  of  the  guilt  of 
sin  by  what  really  satisfies  the  justice  of  God. 

In  the  Bible,  therefore,  as  well  as  in  common  life,  pardon  is  not 
a  mere  consequence  of  sanctification.  It  is  exemption  from  the 
infliction  of  the  deserved  penalty  of  the  law.  Whether  this  ex- 
emption is  a  mere  matter  of  caprice,  or  unworthy  partiality  for 
the  offender,  or  for  considerations  of  expediency,  or  at  the 
promptings  of  compassion,  or  upon  the  ground  of  an  adequate 
satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  justice,  makes  no  difference  so  far 
as  the  nature  of  pardon  is  concerned.  It  is  in  all  cases  the  re- 
mission of  a  penalty  adjudged  to  be  deserved.  It  is  in  this  sense, 
therefore,  that  justification  is  declared  to  include  the  pardon  of 
sins,  founded  on  the  imputation  to  the  believing  sinner  of  the 
perfect  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  this  that  gives  the  believer 
peace.  He  sees  that  he  is  delivered  from  "  the  'wi'atli  and  curse 
of  God  "  due  to  him,  not  by  any  arbitrary  exercise  of  executive 
authority,  but  because  God,  as  a  righteous  judge,  can,  in  virtue 
of  the  propitiation  of  Christ,  be  just  and  yet  justify  the  ungodly. 

The  sins  which  are  pardoned  in  justification  include  all  sins, 
past,  present,  and  future.  It  does  indeed  seem  to  be  a  solecism 
that  sins  should  be  forgiven  before  they  are  committed.  For- 
giveness involves  remission  of  penalty.  But  how  can  a  penalty 
be  remitted  before  it  is  incurred  ?  This  is  only  an  apparent  dif- 
ficulty arising  out  of  the  inadequacy  of  human  language.  The 
righteousness  of  Clirist  is  a  perpetual  donation.  It  is  a  robe 
which  hides,  or  as  the  Bible  expresses  it,  covers  from  the  eye  of 
justice  the  sins  of  the  believer.  They  are  sins  ;  they  deserve  the 
wrath  and  curse  of  God,  but  the  necessity  for  the  infliction  of 


164  PAET  III.   ch.  xvn.  —  justification. 

that  curse  no  longer  exists.  The  believer  feels  the  constant  ne- 
cessity for  confession  and  prayer  for  pardon,  but  the  ground  of 
pardon  is  ever  present  for  him  to  offer  and  plead.  So  that  it 
would  perhaps  be  a  more  correct  statement  to  say  that  in  justifi- 
cation the  behever  receives  the  promise  that  God  will  not  deal 
Avitli  him  according  to  his  transgressions,  rather  than  to  say  that 
sins  are  forgiven  before  they  are  committed. 

This  subject  is  thus  presented  by  the  Apostle :  believers  "  are 
not  under  the  law  but  under  grace."  (Rom.  vi.  14.)  They  are 
not  under  a  legal  system  administered  according  to  the  principles 
of  retributive  justice,  a  system  which  requires  perfect  obedience 
as  the  condition  of  acceptance  with  God,  and  which  says,  "  Cursed 
is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  They  are  under  grace,  that 
is,  under  a  system  in  which  believers  are  not  dealt  with  on  the 
principles  of  justice,  but  on  the  principles  of  undeserved  mercy, 
in  which  God  does  not  impute  "  their  trespasses  unto  them." 
(2  Cor.  V.  19.)  There  is  therefore  to  them  no  condemnation. 
They  are  not  condemned  for  their  sins,  not  because  they  are  not 
sins  and  do  not  deserve  condemnation,  but  because  Christ  has 
already  made  expiation  for  their  guilt  and  makes  continual  inter- 
cession for  them. 

The  second  consequence  attributed  to  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  is  a  title  to  eternal  life.  This  in  the  older  writers 
is  often  expressed  by  the  words  "  adoption  and  heirship."  Being 
made  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  (Gal.  iii.  26), 
they  are  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ  of  a  heav- 
enly inheritance.  (Rom.  viii.  17.)  The  mere  expiation  of  guilt 
confers  no  title  to  eternal  life.  The  condition  of  the  covenant 
under  which  man  was  placed  was  perfect  obedience.  This,  from 
all  that  appears  in  Scripture,  the  perfection  of  God  requires. 
As  He  never  pardons  sins  unless  the  demands  of  justice  be  satis- 
fied, so  He  never  grants  eternal  life  unless  perfect  obedience  be 
rendered.  Heaven  is  always  represented  as  a  purchased  posses- 
sion. In  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  the 
salvation  of  his  pepple  was  promised  as  the  reward  of  his  humil-_ 
iation,  obedience,  and  death.  Having  performed  the  stipulated 
conditions,  He  has  a  claim  to  the  promised  recompense.  And 
this  claim  inures  to  the  benefit  of  his  people.  But  besides  this, 
as  the  work  of  Christ  consisted  in  his  doing  all  that  the  law  of 
God,  or  covenant  of  works  requires  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and 
as  that  righteousness  is  freely  offered  to  every  one  that  beUeves, 


§8.]  RELATION   OF  FAITH   TO   JUSTIFICATION.  165 

every  such  believer  has  as  valid  a  claim  to  eternal  life  as  he 
would  have  had,  had  he  personally  done  all  that  the  law  demands. 
Thus  broad  and  firm  is  the  foundation  which  God  has  laid  for 
the  hopes  of  his  people.  It  is  the  rock  of  ages ;  Jehovah  our 
righteousness. 

§  8.  Relation  of  Faith  to  Justification. 

All  who  profess  to  be  Christians  admit  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.  There  are  different  views,  however,  as  to  the 
relation  between  faith  and  justification,  as  has  been  already  inti- 
mated. 

1.  Pelagians  and  rationalists  teach  that  faith  in  God's  being 
and  perfection,  or  in  the  great  principles  of  moral  and  religious 
truth,  is  the  source  of  that  moral  excellence  on  account  of  which 
we  are  accepted  of  God.  It  is  perhaps  only  a  different  way  of 
expressing  the  same  idea,  to  say  that  God,  in  the  case  of  Abra- 
ham, and,  therefore,  of  other  men,  accepts  the  pious  state  of 
mind  involved  in  the  exercise  of  faith  or  confidence  in  God,  in 
lieu  of  perfect  righteousness. 

2.  Romanists  make  faith  mere  assent.  It  does  not  justify 
as  a  virtue,  or  as  apprehending  the  offered  righteousness  of 
Christ.  It  is  neither  the  formal  nor  the  instrumental  cause  of 
justification,  it  is  merely  the  predisposing  or  occasional  cause. 
A  man  assents  to  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  to  the  more  spe- 
cial truth  that  the  Church  is  a  divine  institution  for  saving:  men. 
He  therefore  comes  to  the  Church  and  receives  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  by  which,  "  ex  opere  operato,"  a  habit  of  grace,  or  spirit- 
ual life  is  infused  into  the  soul,  which  is  the  formal  cause  of  jus- 
tification ;  i.  e.,  it  renders  the  soul  inherently  just  or  holy.  In 
this  sense  the  sinner  may  be  said  to  be  justified  by  faith.  This 
is  the  first  justification.  After  the  man  is  thus  rendered  holy  or 
regenerated,  then  the  exercises  of  faith  have  real  merit,  and  en- 
ter into  the  ground  of  his  second  justification,  by  which  he  bo- 
comes  entitled  to  eternal  life.  But  here  faith  stands  on  a  level 
■with  other  Christian  graces.  It  is  not  the  only,  nor  the  most 
important  ground  of  justification.  It  is  in  this  view  inferior  to 
love,  from  which  faith  indeed  derives  all  its  virtue  as  a  Chris- 
tian grace.  It  is  then  "  fides  formata,"  i.  e.,  faith  of  which  love 
is  the  essence,  the  principle  which  gives  it  character. 


166  PART  ni.    Ch.  xvil— justification. 

The  Romish  Doctrine. 

According  to  the  Romish  scheme  (1.)  God  is  the  efficient  cause 
of  justification,  as  it  is  by  his  power  or  supernatural  grace  that 
the  soul  is  made  just.  (2.)  Christ  is  the  meritorious  cause,  as  it 
is  for  his  sake  God  grants  this  saving  grace,  or  influence  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  children  of  men.  (3.)  Inherent  righteousness  is  the 
formal  cause,  since  thereby  the  soul  is  made  really  just  or  holy. 
(4.)  Faith  is  the  occasional  and  predisposing  cause,  as  it  leads  the 
sinner  to  seek  justification  (regeneration),  and  disposes  God  to 
grant  the  blessing.  In  this  aspect  it  has  the  merit  of  congruity 
only,  not  that  of  condignity.  (5.)  Baptism  is  the  essential  instru- 
mental cause,  as  it  is  only  through  or  by  baptism  that  inherent 
righteousness  is  infused  or  justification  is  effected.  So  much  for 
the  first  justification.  After  this  justification,  which  makes  the 
sinner  holy,  then,  (6.)  Good  works,  all  the  fruits  and  exercises 
of  the  new  life,  have  real  merit  and  constitute  the  ground  of  the 
Christian's  title  to  eternal  fife. 

The  language  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  subject  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Hujus  justificationis  causae  sunt,  finalis  quidem,  gloria 
Dei  et  Christi,  ac  vita  sterna  :  efficiens  vero,  misericors  Deus,  qui 
gratuito  abluit  et  sanctificat,  signans  et  ungens  Spiritu  promissi- 
onis  sancto,  ....  meritoria  autem  dilectissimus  unigenitus  suus, 
Dominus  noster,  Jesus  Christus,  qui,  cum  essemus  inimici,  prop- 
ter nimiam  caritatem,  qua  dilexit  nos,  sua  sanctissima  pa-ssione 
in  ligno  crucis  nobis  justificationem  \i.  e.,  regeneration]  meruit  et 
pro  nobis  Deo  Patri  satisfecit :  instrumentalis  item,  sacr amentum 
baptismi,  quod  est  sacramentum  fidei,  sine  qua  nulli  unquam  con- 
tigit  justificatio  :  demum  unica  formalis  causa  est  justitia  Dei, 
non  qua  ipse  ju.stus  est,  sed  qua  nos  justos  facit :  qua  videlicet  ab 
eo  donati,  renovamur  spiritu  mentis  nostras,  et  non  modo  reputa- 
mur,  sed  vere  justi  nominamur,  et  sumus,  justitiam  in  nobis  re- 
cipientes,  unusquisque  suam  secundum  mensuram,  quam  Spiritus 
Sanctus  partitur  singulis  prout  vult,  et  secundum  propriam  cujus- 
que  dispositionem  et  cooperationem."  Again,  it  is  said  :  "  Quae 
enim  justitia  nostra  dicitur,  quia  per  eam  nobis  inhajrentem 
justificamur  ;  ilia  eadem  Dei  est,  quia  a  Deo  nobis  infunditur  per 
Christi  meritum."  ^  All  this  relates  to  the  first  justification,  or 
regeneration,  in  which  the  soul  passes  from  spiritual  death  to 
spiritual  Hfe.  Of  the  second  justification,  which  gives  a  title  to 
eternal  life,  Bellarmin  says,  '^   "  Habet   communis   cathohcorum 

1  Sess,  VI.  cap.  7,  16;  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symbollci,  Gottingen,  1846,  vol.  i.  pp.  24,  25,  32. 

2  De  Justlficatione,  v.  1 ;  Bisputationes,  Paris,  1608,  p.  949,  a. 


§8.]  RELATION   OF   FAITH   TO   JUSTIFICATION.  167 

omnium  sententia,  opera  bona  jnstorum  vere,  ac  proprie  esse  mer- 
ita,  et  merita  non  cujuscunque  pr^mii,  sed  ipsius  vitae  neternas." 
The  tliirty-second  canon  of  the  Tridentine  Council  at  this  sixth. 
session  anathematizes  any  one  who  teaches  a  different  doctrine. 
"  Si  quis  dixerit,  hominis  justificati  bona  opera  ita  esse  dona  Dei, 
ut  non  sint  etiam  bona  ipsius  justificati  merita  ;  aut  ipsum  justifi- 
catum  bonis  operibus,  qufe  ab  eo  per  Dei  gratiam  et  Jesu  Christi 
meritum,  cujus  vrvum  membrum  est,  fiunt,  non  vere  mereri  aug- 
mentum  gratis,  vitam  geternam,  et  ipsius' vitge  setenife,  si  tamen 
in  gratia  decesserit,  consecutionem,  atque  etiam  glorioe  augmen- 
tum  ;  anathema  sit."  It  appears  from  all  this  that,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  faith  has  no  special  or  direct 
connection  with  justification,  and  that  "justification  by  faith  "  in 
that  Church  means  something  entirely  different  from  what  is  in- 
tended by  those  Avords  in  the  lips  of  evangelical  Christians. 

Remonstrant  View. 

3.  According  to  the  Remonstrants  or  Arminians,  faith  is  the 
ground  of  justification.  Under  the  Gospel  God  accepts  our  im- 
perfect obedience  including  faith  and  springing  from  it,  in  place 
of  the  perfect  obedience  demanded  by  the  law  originally  given  to 
Adam.  There  is  one  passage  in  the  Bible,  or  ratlier  one  form  of 
expression,  which  occurs  in  several  places,  which  seems  to  favour 
this  view  of  the  subject.  In  Romans  iv.  3,  it  is  said,  "  Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness  ; " 
and  again  in  ver.  22  of  that  chapter,  and  in  Galatians  iii.  6.  If 
this  phrase  be  interpreted  according  to  the  analogy  of  such  pas- 
sages as  Romans  ii.  26,  "  Shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted 
for  circumcision  ? "  it  does  mean  that  faith  is  taken  or  accepted 
for  righteousness.  The  Bible,  however,  is  the  word  of  God  and 
therefore  self-consistent.  Consequently  if  a  passage  admits  of 
one  interpretation  inconsistent  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  in 
other  places,  and  of  another  interpretation  consistent  mth  that 
teaching,  we  are  bound  to  accept  the  latter.  This  rule,  simple 
and  obvious  as  it  is,  is  frequently  violated,  not  only  by  those  who 
deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  but  even  by  men  profess- 
ing to  recognize  their  infallible  authority.  They  seem  to  regard  it 
as  a  proof  of  independence  to  make  each  passage  mean  simply  what 
its  grammatical  structure  and  logical  connection  indicate,  mthouc 
the  least  i;egard  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  This  is  unreason- 
able. In  Genesis  xv.  we  are  told  that  Abraham  lamented  before 
the  Lord  that  he  was  childless,  and  that  one  born  in  his  house  was 


168  PART  III.   ch.  xvn.  — justification. 

to  be  his -heir.  And  God  said  unto  him,  "  This  shall  not  be  thine 
heir  ;  but  he  that  shall  come  forth  out  of  thine  own  bowels,  shall 
be  thine  heir.  And  he  brought  him  forth  abroad,  and  said, 
Look  now  toward  heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou  be  able  to 
number  them.  And  he  said  imto  him.  So  shall  thy  seed  be. 
And  he  believed  in  the  LoED ;  and  He  counted  it  to  him  for 
righteousness."  Taking  this  passage  by  itself,  it  is  inferred  that 
the  object  of  Abraham's  faith  was  the  promise  of  a  numerous 
posterity.  Supposing  this  to  be  true,  which  it  certainly  is  not, 
what  right  has  any  one  to  assume  that  Abraham's  faith "ts  oemg 
imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,  means  anything  more  than  when 
it  is  said  that  the  zeal  of  Phinehas  was  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness (Ps.  cvi.  31)  ;  or  when  in  Deuteronomy  xxiv.  13,  it  is  said 
that  to  return  a  poor  man's  pledge  "  shall  be  righteousness  unto 
thee  before  the  Lord  thy  God."  No  one  supposes  that  one  man- 
ifestation of  zeal,  or  one  act  of  benevolence,  is  taken  for  complete 
obedience  to  the  law.  All  that  the  phrase  "  to  impute  for  right- 
eousness "  by  itself  means,  according  to  Old  Testament  usage,  is, 
to  esteem  as  right,  to  approve.  The  zeal  of  Phinehas  was  right. 
Returning  a  poor  man's  pledge  was  right.  These  were  acts 
which  God  approved.  And  so  He  approved  of  Abraham's  faith. 
He  gained  the  favour  of  God  by  believing.  Now  while  this  is 
true,  far  more,  as  the  Apostle  teaches,  is  true.  He  teaches,  first, 
that  the  great  promise  made  to  Abraham,  -and  faith  in  which  se- 
cured his  justification,  was  not  that  his  natural  descendants 
should  be  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  but  that  in  his 
seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed ;  secondly,  that 
the  seed  intended  was  not  a  multitude,  but  one  person,  and  that 
that  one  person  was  Christ  (Gal.  iii.  16)  ;  and,  thirdly,  that  the 
blessinor  which  the  seed  of  Abraham  was  to  secure  for  the  world 
was  redemption.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us  :  .  .  .  .  that  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  (^.  e.,  the  promise  made  to  Abraham)  might  come  on" 
us.  The  promise  made  to  Abraham,  therefore,  was  redemption 
through  Clu-ist.  Hence  those  who  are  Christ's,  the  Apostle 
teaches,  are  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  of  his  promise.  What, 
therefore,  Abraham  believed,  was  that  the  seed  of  the  woman,  the 
Shiloh,  the  promised  Redeemer  of  the  world,  was  to  be  born  of 
him.  He  believed  in  Clu-ist,  as  his  Saviour,  as  his  righteousness, 
and  deliverer,  and  therefore  it  was  that  he  was  accepted  as  right- 
eous, not  for  the  merit  of  his  faith,  and  not  on  the  gi-ound  of 
faith,  or  by  taking  faith  in  lieu  of  righteousness,  but  because  he 
received  and  rested  on  Christ  alone  for  his  salvation. 


I 


§8.]  RELATION   OF   FAITH   TO   JUSTIFICATION.  169 

Unless  sucli  be  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle,  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  there  is  any  coherence  or  force  in  his  arguments.  His  ob- 
ject is  to  prove  that  men  are  justified,  not  by  works,  but  gratu- 
itously ;  not  for  what  they  are  or  do,  but  for  what  is  done  for 
them.  They  are  saved  by  a  ransom ;  by  a  sacrifice.  But  it  is 
absurd  to  say  that  trust  in  a  ransom  redeems,  or  is  taken  in 
place  of  the  ransom  ;  or  that  faith  in  a  sacrifice,  and  not  the  sac- 
rifice itself,  is  the  ground  of  acceptance.  To  prove  that  such  is 
the  Scriptural  method  of  justification,  Paul  appeals  to  the  case 
of  Abraham.  He  was  not  justified  for  his  works,  but  by  faith 
in  a  Redeemer.  He  expected  to  be  justified  as  ungodly.  (Rom. 
iv.  5.)  This,  he  tells  us,  is  what  we  must  do.  We  have  no 
righteousness  of  our  OAvn.  We  must  take  Christ  for  our  wisdom, 
righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption.  In  the  immedi- 
ately preceding  chapter  the  Apostle  had  said  we  are  justified  by 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  a  propitiation  for  sin ;  and  for 
him  to  prove  this  from  the  fact  that  Abraham  was  justified  on 
account  of  his  confiding,  trusting  state  of  mind,  which  led  him 
to  believe  that,  although  a  himdred  years  old,  he  should  be  the 
father  of  a  numerous  posterity,  would  be  a  contradiction. 

Besides,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  not  only  that  the  Scriptures 
never  say  that  we  are  justified  "  on  account  "  of  faith  (Sia  Trt'o-nv), 
but  always  "  by,"  or  "through  "  faith  (Sia  or  ii<  Trta-reMs,  or  Trto-rct)  ; 
but  also  that  it  is  not  by  faith  as  such ;  not  by  faith  in  God,  nor  in 
the  Scriptures  ;  and  not  by  faith  in  a  specific  divine  promise  such 
as  that  made  to  Abraham  of  a  numerous  posterity,  or  of  the  pos- 
session of  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  but  only  by  faith  in  one  particu- 
lar promise,  namely,  that  of  salvation  through  Christ.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  on  account  of  the  state  of  mind,  of  which  faith  is 
the  evidence,  nor  of  the  good  works  which  are  its  fruits,  but  only 
by  faith  as  an  act  of  trust  in  Christ,  that  we  are  justified.  This 
of  necessity  supposes  that  He,  and  not  our  faith,  is  the  ground  of 
our  justification.  He,  and  not  our  faith,  is  the  ground  of  our 
confidence.  How  can  any  Christian  wish  it  to  be  otherwise  ? 
What  comparison  is  there  between  the  absolutely  perfect  and 
the  infinitely  meritorious  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  our  own 
imperfect  evangelical  obedience  as  a  ground  of  confidence  and 
peace  I 

This  doctrine  is  moreover  dishonouring  to  the  Gospel.  It  sup- 
poses the  Gospel  to  be  less  holy  than  the  law.  The  law  required 
perfect  obedience  ;  the  Gospel  is  satisfied  with  imperfect  obedi- 
ence.    And  how  imperfect  and  insufficient  ovir  best  obedience  is, 


170  PART  III.     Ch.   XVII.  — justification. 

the  conscience  of  every  believer  certifies.     If  it  does  not  satisfy 
us,  how  can  it  satisfy  God  ? 

The  grand  objection,  however,  to  this  Remonstrant  doctrine 
as  to  the  relation  between  faith  and  justification,  is  that  it  is  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  plain  and  pervading  teachings  of  the 
Word  of  God.  The  Bible  teaches  that  we  are  not  justified  by 
works.  This  doctrine  affirms  that  we  are  justified  by  works. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  we  are  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
that  it  is  for  his  obedience  that  the  sentence  of  justification  is 
passed  on  men.  This  doctrine  affirms  that  God  pronounces  us 
righteous  because  of  our  own  righteousness.  The  Bible  from 
first  to  last  teaches  that  the  whole  ground  of  our  salvation  or  of 
our  justification  is  objective,  what  Christ  as  our  Redeemer,  our 
ransom,  our  sacrifice,  our  surety,  has  done  for  us.  This  doctrine 
teaches  us  to  look  within,  to  what  we  are  and  to  what  we  do, 
as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  It  may  safely  be 
said  that  this  is  altogether  unsatisfactory  to  the  awakened  con- 
science. The  sinner  cannot  rely  on  anything  in  himself.  He 
instinctively  looks  to  Christ,  to  his  work  done  for  us  as  the 
ground  of  confidence  and  peace.  This  in  the  last  resort  is  the 
hope  of  all  believers,  whatever  their  theory  of  justification  may 
be.  Whether  Papist,  Remonstrant,  or  Augustinian,  they  all 
cast  their  dying  eyes  on  Christ.  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  ser- 
pent in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted 
up  ;  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 

eternal  life." 

Protestant  Doctrine. 

4.  The  common  doctrine  of  Protestants  on  this  subject  is  that 
faith  is  merely  the  instrumental  cause  of  justification.  It  is  the 
act  of  receiving  and  resting  upon  Christ,  and  has  no  other  rela- 
tion to  the  end  than  any  other  act  by  which  a  proffered  good  is 
accepted.  This  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  (1.)  Be- 
cause we  are  constantly  said  to  be  justified  by,  or  through  faith. 
(2.)  Because  the  faith  which  justifies  is  described  as  a  looking, 
as  a  receiving,  as  a  coming,  as  a  fleeing  for  refuge,  as  a  laying 
hold  of,  and  as  a  calling  upon.  (3.)  Because  the  ground  to 
which  our  justification  is  referred,  and  that  on  which  the  sinner's 
trust  is  placed,  is  declared  to  be  the  blood,  the  death,  the  right- 
eousness, the  obedience  of  Christ.  (4.)  Because  the  fact  that 
Christ  is  a  ransom,  a  sacrifice,  and  as  such  effects  our  salvation, 
of  necessity  supposes  that  the  faith  which  interests  us  in  the 
merit  of  his  work  is  a  simple  act  of  trust.     (5.)  Because  any 


§  9.]  OBJECTIONS.  171 

other  view  of  the  case  is  inconsistent  with  the  gratuitous  nature 
of  justification,  with  the  honour  of  Christ,  and  with  the  comfort 
and  confidence  of  the  behever. 

§  9.    Objections  to  the  Protestant  Doctrine  of  Justification. 
It  is  said  to  lead  to  Licentiousness. 

1.  Tlie  first,  most  obvious,  and  most  persistently  urged  objec- 
tion against  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification  through  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  has  ah-eady  been  inci- 
dentally considered.  That  objection  is  that  the  doctrine  leads 
to  license  ;  that  if  good  works  are  not  necessary  to  justification, 
they  are  not  necessary  at  all ;  that  if  God  accepts  the  chief  of 
sinners  as  readily  as  the  most  moral  of  men,  on  the  simple  con- 
dition of  faith  in  Christ,  then  what  profit  is  there  in  circum- 
cision ?  in  Judaism  ?  in  being  in  the  Church  ?  in  being  good 
in  any  form  ?  Why  not  live  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ? 
This  objection  having  been  urged  against  the  Apostle,  it  needs 
no  other  answer  than  that  which  he  himself  gave  it.  That  an- 
swer is  fou^nd  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  and  is  substantially  as  follows  : 

First,  the  objection  involves  a  contradiction.  To  speak  of  sal- 
vation in  sin  is  as  great  an  absurdity  as  to  speak  of  life  in 
death.  Salvation  is  deliverance  from  sin.  How  then  can  men 
be  delivered  from  sin  in  order  that  they  may  live  in  it.  Or, 
as  Paul  expresses  it,'  "  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
any  longer  therein  ?  " 

Secondly,  the  very  act  of  faith  which  secures  our  justification, 
secures  also  our  sanctification.  It  cannot  secure  the  one  without 
securing  also  the  other.  This  is  not  only  the  intention  and  the 
desire  of  the  believer,  but  it  is  the  ordinance  of  God  ;  a  necessary 
feature  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  secured  by  its  nature.  We 
take  Christ  as  our  Redeemer  from  sin,  from  its  power  as  well  as 
from  its  guilt.  And  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  conse- 
quent on  faith  secures  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  cer- 
tainly, and  for  the  very  same  reasons  (the  covenant  stipulations), 
that  it  secures  the  pardon  of  our  sins.  And,  therefore,  if  we  are 
partakers  of  his  death,  we  are  partakers  of  his  life.  If  we  die 
with  Him,  we  rise  with  Him.  If  we  are  justified,  we  are  sancti- 
fied. He,  therefore,  who  lives  in  sin,  proclaims  himself  an  unbe- 
liever. He  has  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  redemption  of  Him 
who  came  to  save  his  people  from  their  sins. 

Thirdly,  our  condition,  the  Apostle  says,  is  analogous  to  that 


172  PART   III.     Ch.   XVII.  — justification. 

of  a  slave,  belonging  first  to  one  master,  tlien  to  another.  So 
long  as  lie  belonged  to  one  man,  he  was  not  mider  tlie  authority 
of  another.  But  if  freed  from  the  one  and  made  the  slave  of 
the  other,  then  he  comes  under  an  influence  which  constrams 
obedience  to  the  latter.  So  we  were  the  slaves  of  sin,  but  now, 
freed  from  that  hard  master,  we  have  become  the  servants  of 
righteousness.  For  a  believer,  therefore,  to  live  in  sin,  is  just  as 
impossible  as  for  the  slave  of  one  man  to  be  at.  the  same  time 
the  slave  of  another.  We  are  indeed  free  ;  but  not  free  to  sin. 
We  are  only  free  from  the  bondage  of  the  devil  and  introduced 
into  the  pure,  exalted,  and  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God. 

Fourthly,  the  objection  as  made  against  the  Apostle  and  as 
constantly  repeated  since,  is  urged  in  the  interests  of  morality 
and  of  common  sense.  Reason  itself,  it  is  said,  teaches  that  a 
man  must  be  good  before  he  can  be  restored  to  the  favour  of 
God  ;  and  if  we  teach  that  the  number  and  heinousness  of  a 
man's  sins  are  no  barrier  to  his  justification,  and  his  good  works 
are  no  reason  why  he  should  be  justified  rather  than  the  chief  of 
sinners,  we  upset  the  very  foundations  of  morality.  This  is  the 
wisdom  of  men.  The  wisdom  of  God,  as  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  very  different.  According  to  the  Bible  the  favour  of 
God  is  the  life  of  the  soul.  The  light  of  his  countenance  is  to 
rational  creatures  what  the  light  of  the  sun  is  to  the  earth,  the 
source  of  all  that  is  beautiful  and  good.  So  long,  therefore,  as 
a  soul  is  under  his  curse,  there  is  no  life-giving  or  life-sustaining 
intercourse  between  it  and  God.  In  this  state  it  can  only,  as . 
the  Apostle  expresses  it,  "bring  forth  fruit  unto  death."  As 
soon,  however,  as  it  exercises  faith,  it  receives  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  God's  justice  is  thereby  satisfied, 
and  the  Spirit  comes  and  takes  up  his  dwelling  in  the  believer 
as  the  source  of  all  holy  living.  There  can  therefore  be  no 
holiness  until  there  is  reconciliation  with  God,  and  no  reconcilia- 
tion with  God  except  through  the  righteousness  imputed  to  us 
and  received  by  faith  alone.  Then  follow  the  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit,  progressive  sanctification,  and  all  the  fruits  of  holy 
living. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  scheme  involves  an  inconsistency. 
There  can  be  no  holiness  until  there  is  reconciliation,  and  no  rec- 
onciliation (so  far  as  adults  are  concerned)  until  there  is  faith. 
But  faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  and  an  act  of  the  renewed  soul. 
Then  there  is  and  must  be,  after  all,  holy  action  before  there  is 
reconciliation.     It  might  be  enough  to  say  in  answer  to  this  objec- 


§  9.]  OBJECTIONS.  173 

tion,  that  logical  order  and  chronological  succession  are  different 
things  ;  or  that  the  order  of  nature  and  order  of  time  are  not  to 
be  confounded.  Many  things  are  contemporaneous  or  co-instan- 
taneous which  nevertheless  stand  in  a  certain  logical,  and  even 
causal  relation  to  each  other.  Christ  commanded  the  man  with 
a  withered  arm  to  stretch  forth  his  hand.  He  immediately  obeyed, 
but  not  before  he  received  strength.  He  called  to  Lazarus  to 
come  forth  from  the  grave  ;  and  he  came  forth.  But  this  pre- 
supposes a  restoration  of  life.  So  God  commands  the  sinner  to 
beheve  in  Christ ;  and  he  thereupon  receives  Him  as  his  Saviom' ; 
though  this  supposes  supernatural  power  or  grace. 

Our  Lord,  however,  gives  another  answer  to  this  objection. 
He  says,  as  recorded  in  John  xvii.  9,  "  I  pray  not  for  the  world, 
but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me  ;  for  they  are  thine." 
The  intercession  of  Christ  secures  for  those  given  to  Him  by  the 
Father  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  first  act  of  the 
renewed  heart  is  faith ;  as  the  first  act  of  a  restored  eye  is  to  see. 
Whether  this  satisfies  the  understanding  or  not,  it  remains  clear 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  that  good  works  are  the  fruits  and 
consequences  of  reconciliation  with  God,  through  faith  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Inconsistent  with  the   G-race  of  the   Crospel. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  the  Protestant  doctrine  destroys  the 
gratuitous  nature  of  justification.  If  justice  be  satisfied ;  if  all 
the  demands  of  the  law  are  met,  there  can,  it  is  said,  be  no  gTace 
in  the  salvation  of  the  sinner.  If  a  man  owes  a  debt,  and  some 
one  pays  it  for  him,  the  creditor  shows  no  grace  in  giving  an  ac- 
quittal. This  objection  is  familiar,  and  so  also  is  the  answer. 
The  work  of  Christ  is  not  of  the  nature  of  a  commercial  transac- 
tion. It  is  not  analogous  to  a  pecuniary  satisfaction  except  in  one 
point.  It  secures  the  deliverance  of  those  for  whom  it  is  offered 
and  by  whom  it  is  accepted.  In  the  case  of  guilt  the  demand  of 
justice  is  upon  the  person  of  the  offender.  He,  and  he  alone  is 
bound  to  answer  at  the  bar  of  justice.  No  one  can  take  his 
place,  unless  with  the  consent  of  the  representative  of  justice  and 
of  the  substitute,  as  well  as  of  the  sinner  himself.  Among  men, 
substitution  in  the  case  of  crime  and  its  penalty  is  rarely,  if  ever 
admissible,  because  no  man  has  the  right  over  his  own  life  or  hb- 
erty ;  he  cannot  give  them  up  at  pleasure  ;  and  because  no  human 
magistrate  has  the  right  to  relieve  the  offender  or  to  inflict  the 
legal  penalty  on  another.     But  Christ  had  power,  i.  e.,  the  right 


174  PART  m.   Ch.  xvil  — justification. 

(e^ovo-m)  to  lay  down  his  life  and  "  power  to  take  it  again."  And 
God,  a'-',  absolute  judge  and  sovereign,  the  Lord  of  the  conscience, 
and  the  proprietor  of  all  his  creatures,  was  at  full  liberty  to 
accept  a  substitute  for  sinners.  This  is  proved  beyond  contradic- 
tion by  what  God  has  actually  done.  Under  the  old  dispensation 
every  sacrifice  appointed  by  the  law  was  a  substitute  for  him  ia 
whose  behalf  it  was  offered.  In  the  clearest  terms  it  was  pre- 
dicted that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  substitute  of  his  people  ; 
that  the  chastisement  of  their  sins  was  to  be  laid  on  Him,  and 
that  He  Avas  to  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin.  He  was  hailed 
as  He  entered  on  his  ministry  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  was  to 
bear  the  sins  of  the  world.  He  died  the  just  for  the  mijust.  He 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  being  made  a  curse 
for  us.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  being  a  substitute.  To  deny 
this  is  to  deny  the  central  idea  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  re- 
demj)tion.  To  explain  it  away,  is  to  absorb  as  with  a  sponge  the 
Ufe-blood  of  the  Gospel. 

It  is  the  glory,  the  power,  and  the  preciousness  of  the  Protes- 
tant doctrine  that  it  makes  the  salvation  of  sinners  a  matter  of 
grace  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  On  the  part  of  the  eternal 
Father  it  was  of  grace,  i.  e.,  of  unmerited,  mysterious,  and  im- 
measurable love  that  He  provided  a  substitute  for  sinners,  and  that 
He  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  freely  gave  Him  up  for  us  all. 
It  was  a  matter  of  grace,  i.  e.,  of  love  to  sinners,  to  the  ungodly, 
to  his  enemies,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  became  man,  assumed 
the  burden  of  our  sins,  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  obeying  and 
suffering  even  unto  death,  that  we  might  not  perish  but  have 
eternal  life.  It  is  of  grace  that  the  Spirit  applies  to  men  the  re- 
demption purchased  by  Christ ;  that  He  renews  the  heart ;  that 
He  overcomes  the  opposition  of  sinners,  making  them  willing  in 
the  day  of  his  power ;  that  He  bears  with  all  their  ingratitude, 
disobedience,  and  resistance,  and  never  leaves  them  until  his  work 
is  consummated  in  glory.  In  all  this  the  sinner  is  not  treated 
according  to  his  character  and  conduct.  He  has  no  claim  to  any 
one  in  this  long  catalogue  of  mercies.  Everj'ihing  to  him  is  a 
matter  of  unmerited  grace.  Merited  grace,  indeed,  is  a  solecism. 
And  so  is  merited  salvation  in  the  case  of  sinners. 

Grace  does  not  cease  to  be  grace  because  it  is  not  exercised  in 
violation  of  order,  propriety,  and  justice.  It  is  not  the  weak  fond- 
ness of  a  doting  parent.  It  is  the  love  of  a  holy  God,  who  in 
order  to  reveal  that  love  and  manifest  the  exceeding  glory  of  that 
attribute  when   exercised   towards   the  unworthy,  did  what  waa 


§  9.:  OBJECTIONS.  175 

necessary  to  render  its  exercise  consistent  with  tlie  other  perfec- 
tions of  the  divine  nature.  It  was  indispensable  that  God  should 
be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly,  but  He  does  not  thereby  cease 
to  be  gracious,  inasmuch  as  it  was  He  who  provided  the  ran- 
som by  which  the  objects  of  his  love  are  redeemed  from  the  curse 
of  the  law  and  the  power  of  sin. 

Crod  cannot  declare  the  Unjust  to  he  Just. 

3.  Another  standing  objection  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  has 
been  so  often  met,  that  nothing  but  its  constant  repetition  justifies 
a  repetition  of  the  answer.  It  is  said  to  be  absurd  that  one  man 
should  be  righteous  with  the  righteousness  of  another ;  that  for 
God  to  pronounce  the  unjust  just  is  a  contradiction.  This  is  a 
mere  play  on  words.  It  is,  however,  very  serious  play  ;  for  it  is 
caricaturing  truth.  It  is  indeed  certain  that  the  subjective,  inhe- 
rent quality  of  one  person  or  thing  cannot  by  imputation  become 
the  inherent  characteristic  of  any  other  person  or  thing.  Wax 
cannot  become  hard  by  the  imputation  of  the  hardness  of  a  stone  ; 
nor  can  a  brute  become  rational  by  the  imputation  of  the  intelli- 
gence of  a  man  ;  nor  the  wicked  become  good  by  the  imputation 
of  the  goodness  of  other  men.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  one 
man's  assuming  the  responsibility  of  another  man  ?  If  among 
men  the  bankrupt  can  become  solvent  by  a  rich  man's  assuming 
his  responsibilities,  why  in  the  court  of  God  may  not  the  guilty 
become  righteous  by  the  Son  of  God's  assuming  their  responsi- 
bilities ?  If  He  was  made  sin  for  us,  why  may  we  not  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him  ?  The  objection  assumes  that 
the  word  "just"  or  "righteous"  in  this  connection,  expresses 
moral  character  ;  whereas  in  the  Bible,  when  used  in  relation 
to  this  subject,  it  is  always  used  in  a  judicial  sense,  ^.  e.,  it  ex- 
presses the  relation  of  the  person  spoken  of  to  justice.  At/caios 
is  antithetical  to  uttoS^kos.  The  man  with  regard  to  whom  justice 
is  unsatisfied,  is  vttoSikos,  "guilty."  He  with  regard  to  whom 
justice  is  satisfied,  is  StKatos,  "  righteous."  To  declare  righteous, 
therefore,  is  not  to  declare  holy  ;  and  to  impute  righteousness  is 
not  to  impute  goodness  ;  but  simply  to  regard  and  pronounce 
those  who  receive  the  gift  of  Christ's  righteousness,  free  from  con- 
demnation and  entitled  to  eternal  life  for  his  sake.  Some  philo- 
sophical theologians  seem  to  think  that  there  is  real  antagonism 
between  love  and  justice  in  the  divine  nature,  or  that  these  at- 
tributes are  incompatible  or  inharmonious.  This  is  not  so  in  man  , 
why  then  should  it  be  so  in  God  ?     The  highest  form  of  moral 


176  PART  m.  ch.  xvii— justification. 

excellence  includes  these  attributes  as  essential  elements  of  its 
perfection.  And  the  Scriptures  represent  them  as  mysteriously 
blended  in  the  salvation  of  man.  The  gosj^el  is  a  revelation  to 
principalities  and  powers  in  heaven  of  the  TroADTrotKtXos  aocjiLa  tov 
©ecS,  because  therein  He  shows  that  He  can  be  just  and  yet  justify, 
love,  sanctify,  and  glorify  the  chief  of  sinners.  For  which  all 
siimers  should  render  Him  everlasting  thanksgiving  and  praise. 

Christ'' s  Righteousness  due  for  Himself. 

4.  It  was  natural  that  Socinus,  who  regarded  Christ  as  a  mere 
man,  should  object  to  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness to  the  believer,  that  Christ  was  mider  the  same  obhga- 
tion  to  obey  the  law  and  to  take  his  share  of  human  suffering  as 
other  men,  and  therefore  that  his  righteousness  being  due  for  Him- 
self, could  not  be  imputed  to  others.  This  objection  is  substan- 
tially urged  by  some  who  admit  the  divinity  of  Christ.  In  doing 
so,  however,  they  virtually  assume  the  Nestorian,  or  dualistic  view 
of  Christ's  person.  They  argue  on  the  assumption  that  He  waa 
a  human  person,  and  that  he  stood,  in  virtue  of  his  assumption  of 
our  nature,  in  the  same  relation  to  the  law  as  other  men.  It  is 
admitted,  however,  that  the  Son,  who  became  incarnate,  was  from 
eternity  the  second  person  in  the  Godhead.  If,  therefore,  hu- 
manity as  assumed  by  him  was  a  person,  then  we  have  two  per- 
sons, —  two  Christs,  — the  one  human,  the  other  divine.  But  if 
Christ  be  only  one  person,  and  if  that  person  be  the  eternal  Son 
of  God,  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory  with 
the  Father,  then  the  whole  foundation  of  the  objection  is  gone. 
Christ  sustained  no  other  relation  to  the  law,  except  so  far  as 
voluntarily  assumed,  than  that  which  God  himself  sustains.  But 
God  is  not  under  the  law.  He  is  Himself  the  primal,  immutable, 
and  infinitely  perfect  law  to  all  rational  creatures.  Christ's  sub- 
jection to  the  law  therefore,  was  as  voluntary  as  his  submitting 
to  the  death  of  the  cross.  As  He  did  not  die  for  Himself,  so  nei- 
ther did  He  obey  for  Himself.  In  both  forms  of  his  obedience  He 
acted  for  us,  as  our  representative  and  substitute,  that  through 
his  righteousness  many  might  be  made  righteous. 

As  to  the  other  form  of  this  objection,  it  has  the  same  fovmda- 
tion  and  admits  of  the  same  answer.  It  is  said  that  the  obedience 
and  sufferings  of  Christ,  being  the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  a 
mere  man,  or  at  best  of  only  the  human  element  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  his  person,  could  have  only  a  human,  and,  therefore,  only  a 
finite  value,  and  consequently  could  be  no  adequate  satisfaction 


§  9.]  OBJECTIONS.  177 

for  tlie  sins  of  the  whole  workl.  Our  I.ord  told  his  disciples,  "  Ye 
are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows."  If,  then,  in  the  sight  of 
God  a  man  is  of  far  greater  value  than  irrational  creatures,  why- 
should  it  be  thought  incredible  that  the  blood  of  the  eternal  Son 
of  God  should  cleanse  from  all  sin  ?  What  a  man  does  with  his 
hands,  the  man  does ;  and  what  Christ  through  his  human  nature 
did,  in  the  execution  of  his  mediatorial  work,  the  Son  of  God  did. 
Therefore,  men  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  did  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  Lord  of  glory  was  crucified 
(1  Cor.  ii.  8),  and  that  God  purchased  the  Church"  with  his  own 
blood."  (Acts  XX.  28.)^  If,  then,  the  obedience  rendered,  and  the 
sufferings  endured,  were  those  of  a  divine  person,  we  can  only  shut 
our  mouths  and  bow  down  before  God  in  adoring  wonder,  with 
the  full  assurance  that  the  merit  of  that  obedience  and  of  those 
sufferings,  must  be  abundantly  sufficient  for  the  justification  of 
every  sinner  upon  earth,  in  the  past,  the  present,  or  the  future. 

Believers  continue  Cruilty^  and  liable  to  Punishment. 
5.  It  is  sometimes  objected  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this 
subject,  that  believers  not  only  recognize  themselves  as  justly  ex- 
posed to  condemnation  for  their  present  shortcomings  and  trans- 
gressions, but  that  the  Scriptures  so  represent  them,  and  con- 
stantly speak  of  God  as  punishing  his  people  for  their  sins.  How 
is  this  to  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  that  they  are  not  under 

1  The  text  in  this  passage  is  indeed  disputed.  The  common  text  has  OeoG,  "  the  Church  of 
God;  "  which  is  retained  by  Mill,  Bengel,  Knapp,  Hahn,  and  others  in  their  editions  of  the 
New  Testament.  Many  MSS.  have  KupioO  km  9eoC;  and  others,  simply  KupioO.  The  fact  that 
the  phrase  "  the  Church  of  God  "  occurs  eleven  times  in  the  New  Testament,  while  "  Church 
of  the  Lord"  never  occurs,  is  urged  as  a  reason  in  favour  of  the  latter  reading,  as  it  is  as- 
sumed that  transcribers  would  be  apt  to  adopt  a  familiar,  rather  than  an  unexampled  ex- 
pression. There  may  be  some  force  in  this.  On  the  other  hand,  the  presumption  is  that 
the  sacred  writers  adhere  to  their  own  "  usus  loquendi."  The  words  in  Acts  xx.  28  are 
Paul's  words,  and  as  he,  at  least  in  ten  other  cases,  speaks  of  the  "  Church  of  God,"  and 
never  once  uses  the  expression  "  Church  of  the  Lord,"  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improb- 
able that  he  uses  that  phrase  here.  Besides,  it  is  evident  that  transcribers,  critics,  and  her- 
etics would  have  a  strong  disposition  to  get  rid  of  such  a  phrase  as  "the  blood  of  God." 
Modern  critics  do  not  hesitate  to  assign,  as  one  of  their  reasons  for  rejecting  the  common 
text,  that  the  expression  is  "  too  strong."  The  passage,  however,  though  sacred,  is  not  es- 
sential. The  usage  perv^ades  the  New  Testament  of  predicating  of  the  person  of  Christ 
what  is  true  of  either  element,  the  human  or  the  divine,  of  his  mysteriously  constituted 
personality.  In  Hebrews  i.  3  the  person  who  upholds  the  universe  by  the  word  of  his  pow- 
er, i«  said  to  have  purged  our  sins  by  Himself,  i.  e.,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  And  in 
ii.  14,  the  person  whom  the  sacred  writer  had  set  forth  as  higher  than  the  angels,  as  God,  as 
creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  as  eternal  and  immutable,  is  said  to  have  become  partaker 
of  flesh  and  blood,  in  order  that  by  death  He  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death. 
And  in  Philippians  ii.  G,  9,  hu  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  and  thought  it  nut  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God,  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Nevertheless,  al- 
though Acts  XX.  28  be  not  essential  to  prove  any  doctrine,  those  who  believe  it  as  it  reads 
in  the  common  text,  to  be  part  of  the  word  of  God,  are  bound  to  stand  by  it-. 

VOL.    III.  12 


178  PART  m.    Ch.  XVII.— justification. 

condemnation ;  that,  as  regards  tliem,  justice  has  been  fully  sat- 
isfied, and  that  no  one  can  justly  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of 
God's  elect. 

It  must  be  admitted,  or  rather  it  is  fully  acknowledged  that 
every  believer  feels  himself  unworthy  of  the  least  of  God's  mercies. 
He  knows  that  if  God  were  to  deal  with  him  according  to  his 
character  and  conduct,  he  must  inevitably  be  condemned.  This 
sense  of  ill-desert  or  demerit,  is  indelible.  It  is  a  righteous  judg- 
ment Avliich  the  sinner  passes,  and  cannot  but  pass  upon  him- 
self. But  the  ground  of  his  justification  is  not  in  himself.  The 
believer  acknowledges  that  in  himself  he  deserves  nothing  but 
indignation  and  wrath,  not  only  for  what  he  has  been,  but  for 
what  he  now  is.  This  is  what  he  feels  when  he  looks  at  himself. 
Nevertheless,  he  knows  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  that  Christ  has  assumed  the  responsi- 
bility of  answering  for  him  at  the  bar  of  God  ;  that  He  constantly 
pleads  his  own  perfect  righteousness,  as  a  reason  why  the  de- 
served penalty  should  not  be  inflicted.  If  punishment  were  not 
deserved,  pardon  would  not  be  gratuitous  ;  and  if  not  felt  to  be 
deserved,  deliverance  could  not  be  received  as  a  favour.  The  con- 
tinued sense  of  ill-desert,  on  the  part  of  the  believer,  is  in  no  wise 
inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that  the  claims  of  jus- 
tice in  regard  to  him  have  been  satisfied  by  his  substitute  and 
advocate.  There  is  a  great  difference,  as  often  remarked,  be- 
tween demerit  and  guilt.  The  latter  is  the  liability  in  justice  to 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  former  is  personal  ill-desert.  A 
criminal  who  has  suffered  the  legal  punishment  of  his  crime,  is  no 
longer  justly  exposed  to  punishment  for  that  offence.  He  how- 
ever thinks  of  himself  no  better  than  he  did  before.  He  knows  he 
cannot  be  subjected  to  further  punishment ;  but  his  sense  of  de- 
merit is  not  thereby  lessened.  And  so  it  is  with  the  believer  ;  he 
laiows  that,  because  of  what  Christ  has  done  for  him,  he  cannot 
be  justly  condemned,  but  he  feels  and  admits  that  in  himself  he 
is  as  hell-deserving  as  he  was  from  the  beginning.  The  heart  of 
the  believer  solves  many  difficulties  which  the  speculative  under- 
standing finds  it  hard  to  unravel.  And  it  need  not  inordinately 
trouble  him,  if  the  latter  be  dissatisfied  mth  the  solution,  pro- 
vided he  is  sure  that  he  is  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  by 
the  word. 

This  Theory  concerns  only  the  Outward. 

6.  Modern  theologians  in  many  instances  object  to  the  Protes- 
tant doctrine  of  justification,  that  it  is  outward ;  concerns  only 


§  10]        DEPARTURES  FROM  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.         179 

legal  relations  ;  disregards  the  true  nature  of  the  mystical  union  ; 
and  represents  Christ  and  his  righteousness  as  purely  objective, 
instead  of  looking  upon  Christ  as  giving  Himself,  his  life  to  become 
the  life  of  the  believer,  and  with  his  Hfe  conveying  its  merits  and 
its  poAver.  We  are  not  concerned  at  present  Avith  the  theory  on 
which  this  objection  is  founded,  but  simply  Avith  the  objection 
itself.  What  is  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  is  true. 
It  does  concern  Avhat  is  outward  and  objective ;  what  is  done  for 
the  sinner  rather  than  what  is  done  within  him.  But  then  it  is 
to  be  considered,  first,  that  this  is  what  the  sinner  needs.  He  re- 
quires not  only  that  his  nature  should  be  renewed  and  that  a  new 
jjrlnciple  of  spiritual  or  diAdne  life  should  be  communicated  to 
him  ;  but  also  that  liis  guilt  should  be  removed,  his  sins  expiated, 
and  justice  satisfied,  as  the  preliminary  condition  of  his  enjoying 
this  new  life,  and  being  restored  to  the  favour  of  God.  And  sec- 
ondly, that  such  is  the  constant  representation  of  Scripture,  our 
only  trustAvorthy  guide  in  matters  of  religious  doctrine.  The  Bible 
makes  quite  as  prominent  Avhat  Christ  does  for  us,  as  what  He 
does  in  us.  It  says  as  much  of  his  objective,  expiatory  Avork,  as 
of  the  communication  of  a  higher  spiritual  life  to  believers.  It  is 
only  by  ignoring  this  objective  work  of  Christ,  or  by  merging 
justification  into  iuAvard  renovation,  that  this  objection  has  force 
or  even  plausibility.  Protestants  do  not  depreciate  the  value  and 
necessity  of  the  new  life  derived  from  Christ,  because,  in  obedience 
to  the  Scriptures,  they  insist  so  strenuously  upon  the  satisfaction 
which  He  has  rendered  by  his  perfect  righteousness  to  the  justice 
of  God.     Without  the  latter,  the  former  is  impossible. 

§  10.  Departures  from  the  Protestant  Doctrine. 
Osiander. 
During  the  lifetime  of  the  Reformers,  a  very  earnest  contro- 
versy began  in  the  Lutheran  Church  on  the  nature  of  justification. 
This  arose  from  the  views  of  Andreas  Osiander,  a  man  of  distin- 
guished learning  and  of  a  speculative  turn  of  mind  ;  eminent  first 
as  a  preacher,  and  afterAvards  as  a  professor  in  the  university  of 
Konigsberg.  His  principal  work  is  entitled  "  De  Unico  Media- 
tore  Jesu  Christo  et  Justificatione  Fidei.  Confessio  Andrese 
Osiandri."  His  difference  of  opinion  from  the  other  Reformers 
is  clearly  indicated  in  the  foUoAving  Avords,  in  Avhich  he  denounces 
the  errors  Avhich  he  means  to  oppose :  "  Omnes  horribiliter  errant. 
Primo,  quia  verbum  justificare  tantum  pro  justum  reputare  et 
pronimciare  intelligunt,  atque  interpretantur,  et  non  pro  eo,  quod 


180  PART  in.   ch.  xvn.— justification. 

est,  reipsa  et  in  veritate  justum  efficere.  Deinde  etiam  in  hoc, 
quod  nullani  differentiam  tenent  inter  redemptionem  et  justifica 
tioneui,  quum  tamen  magna  differentia  sit,  sicut  vel  inde  intelligi 
sit,  qviod  homines  furem  a  suspendio  redimere  possunt,  bonum  et 
justum  efficere  non  possunt.  Porro  etiam  in  hoc,  quod  nihil  certe 
statuere  possunt,  quid  tandem  justitia  Christi  sit,  quam  per  fidem 
in  nobis  esse,  nobisque  imputari  oporteat.  Ac  postremo  errant 
omnium  rudissime  etiam  in  hoc,  quod  divinam  naturam  Christi  a 
justiiicatione  separant,  et  Christum  dividunt  atque  solvunt,  id 
quod  hand  dubie  execrandi  Satame  opus  est."  ^ 

Osiander  taught,  (1.)  That  Christ  has  redeemed  us  by  the 
satisfaction  which  He  rendered  to  divine  justice.  (2.)  But  he 
denied  that  this  was  any  part  of  our  justification.  (3.)  He 
maintained  tliat  to  justify  does  not  mean  to  dechire  just,  or  to 
render  righteous  in  a  judicial  or  forensic  sense,  but  to  render  in- 
herently or  subjectively  just  and  holy.  (4.)  That  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  by  which  the  believer  is  justified,  and  which  he 
receives  by  faith,  and  which  is  imputed  to  him  in  the  judgment  of 
God,  is  not,  as  the  Protestants  taught,  the  work  of  Christ,  con- 
sisting in  what  He  did  and  suffered  as  the  substitute  of  siimers, 
nor  is  it,  as  Romanists  teach,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  consist- 
ing in  the  infusion  of  a  holy  nature  or  of  new  habits  of  grace,  but 
it  is  the  "essential  righteousness  of  God,"  "the  divine  essence," 
"  God  Himself."  (5.)  That  consequently  the  proximate  and 
real  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  and  of  our  reception  into 
heaven,  is  what  we  are,  or  what  we  become,  in  virtue  of  this  in- 
dwelling of  God  in  the  soul. 

The  speculations  of  Osiander  as  to  the  nature  of  God  and  his 
relation  to  man,  might  have  led  hun  under  any  circumstances  to 
adopt  the  peculiar  views  above  stated,  but  the  proximate  cause 
was  no  doubt  the  reaction  from  the  too  exclusive  prominence 
given  at  that  time  to  the  objective  work  of  Christ.  This  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at,  and  perhaps  was  not  to  be  blamed.  The  Ro- 
manists, with  whom  the  Protestants  had  to  contend,  did  not  deny 
the  necessity  of  an  inward  change  in  the  nature  of  fallen  man. 
But  they  made  this  almost  all  of  Christ's  redeeming  work.' 
What  He  did  for  the  expiation  of  sin  and  for  meeting  the  de- 
mands of  justice,  was  only  to  open  the  way  for  God's  giving  re- 
newing and  sanctifying  grace  to  sinners.  Men  were  themscslves 
to  merit  eternal  life.  It  was  unavoidable  therefore,  that  the  Re- 
formers should  strenuously  insist  upon  what  Christ  did  for  U3, 

1  Confessiv,  Kunigsburg,  1551;  by  count,  pp.  42,  43,  of  the  text. 


§  10.]       DEPARTURES   FROM  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.         181 

and  that  tliey  should  protest  against  confounding  justification 
with  sanctification.  Osiander's  cast  of  mind  made  him  revolt  at 
this,  and  carried  him  completely  over  to  the  Romish  side,  so  far 
as  the  nature  of  ju.stification  is  concerned.  He  said  that  the 
Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  is  "  colder  than  ice."  It  is  as 
though  a  man  should  pay  the  ransom  of  a  Turkish  slave,  and 
leave  him  and  his  children  in  bondage.  Still  more  violent  is  his 
denunciation  of  the  doctrine  that  Clirist's  righteousness,  of  which 
we  partake  through  faith,  consists  of  his  obedience  and  sufferings. 
What  good  can  they  do  us  ?  Christ  obeyed  and  suffered  centuries 
ago  ;  we  cannot  appropriate  what  He  tlien  did  and  make  it  our 
own.  Imputing  it  to  us  does  not  alter  the  case.  It  does  not  make 
us  better.  Speculative  as  well  as  Biblical  reasons,  however,  pre- 
vented Osiander  from  accepting  the  Romish  solution  of  the  dif- 
ficulty. What  we  are  said  to  receive  is  "•  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,"  "  the  righteousness,  of  God;  "  but  sanctifying  grace  is 
never  called  the  righteousness  of  God.  If,  therefore,  that  right- 
eou.sness  by  which  the  believer  is  constituted  righteous,  be  neither 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  nor  infused  grace,  what  can  it  be  other 
than  the  essential  righteousness  of  God,  the  divine  essence  itseK  ? 
Calvin,  who  in  his  "  Institutes  "  earnestly  combats  the  theory  of 
Osiander,  says  that  he  invented  "  monstrum  nescio  quod  essentialia 
justitise."  "  Dilucide  exprimit,  se  non  ea  justitia  contentum,  quas 
nobis  obedientia  et  sacrificio  mortis  Clu'isti  parta  est,  fingere  nos 
substantialiter  in  Deo  justos  esse  tam  essentia  quam  quahtate  in- 

fusa Substantialem  mixtionem  ingerit,  qua  Deus  se  in 

nos  transfundens,  quasi  partem  sui  faciat.  Nam  virtute  Spiritua 
sancti  fieri,  ut  coalescamus  cum  Christo,  nobisque  sit  caput  et 
nos  ejus  membra,  fere  pro  nihilo  ducit,  nisi  ejus  essentia  nobis 
misceatur."  ^ 

But  what  theory  of  the  nature  of  God  and  of  his  relation  to 
man  did  Osiander  hold,  which  admitted  of  this  doctrine  of  the 
infusion  of  the  divine  essence  into  the  soul  ?  His  views  on  this 
point  were  not  clearly  brought  out,  but  the  primary  idea  which 
underlies  his  speculation  is  the  old  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of  God 
and  man.  Man  is  God  in  at  least  one  form  of  his  existence. 
He  held  that  Christ  is  the  image,  the  representative,  the  realized 
ideal  of  the  Godhead,  not  as  Logos  or  Son,  but  as  Godman,  the 
Theanthropos.  As  from  its  nature  or  from  the  nature  of  God 
this  idea  must  be  realized,  this  manifestation  of  God  in  his  true 
idea  must  occur,  and  therefore  the  incarnation  would  have  taken 

1  Institution  III.  XI.  5,  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  part  ii.  p.  8. 


182  PART  in.     Ch.  XVII. —JUSTIFICATION. 

place  had  man  never  sinned.  The  fall  of  Adam  only  modified 
the  circumstances  attending  the  incarnation,  determining  that  it 
should  involve  suffering  and  death.  But  the  incarnation  itself, 
the  appearance  of  God  in  fashion  as  a  man  arose  from  a  law  of 
the  di\'ine  nature.  Adam  was  created  not  after  the  image  of 
God  as  such,  but  after  the  image  of  Christ ;  in  some  sort,  a  God- 
man.  The  affinity  of  this  theory  with  the  modern  pantheistic 
speculations  is  apparent.  Baur,  therefore,  is  doubtless  right 
when  he  says,  at  the  close  of  his  apologetic  notice  of  Osiander's 
doctrine,  that  liis  idea  of  the  relation  between  the  divine  and  hu- 
man "is  that  which  at  last  found  its  adequate  scientific  expression 
by  Schleiermacher  and  Hegel,  that  Christ  as  Redeemer  is  the  per- 
fected creation  of  human  nature ;  or,  that  the  divine  nature  is  the 
truth  of  humanity,  and  human  nature  the  reality,  or  existence- 
form  (die  Wirklichkeit)  of  the  divine  nature."  ^ 

Stancarus. 
Stancarus,  a  contemporary  and  opponent  of  Osiander,  went  to 
the  extreme  of  asserting  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  was  the 
work  of  his  human  nature  exclusively.  This  doctrine  was  how- 
ever repudiated  by  the  Romanists  as  well  as  by  Protestants.  If 
it  was  Christ's  human  nature  as  such  (and  not  the  divine  person) 
who  obeyed,  then  the  human  nature  in  Christ  was  a  distinct  sub- 
sistence, and  thus  the  unity  of  his  person  is  destroyed.  Besides, 
if  it  was  not  a  divine  person  in  his  human  nature  who  obeyed 
and  suffered,  then  we  have  but  a  human  Saviour,  and  a  righteous- 
ness of  no  higher  than  a  human  value.  We  know  from  Scrip- 
ture that  it  was  the  Lord  of  glory  who  was  crucified,  the  Son  of 
God  who,  being  born  of  a  woman,  was  made  under  the  law. 

Piscator. 

The  first  conspicuous  departure  from  the  Protestant  doctrine 
of  justification  among  the  Reformed,  was  on  the  part  of  Piscator, 
whose  denial  of  the  imputation  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ 
to  the  behever,  excited  for  some  years  a  good  deal  of  discussion, 
but  it  passed  away  without  leaving  any  distinct  trace  in  the- 
theology  of  the  Reformation.  Baur,  indeed,  assigns  to  it  more 
importance,  as  he  regards  it  as  the  first  step  in  the  downfall  of 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  over  which  he 
rejoices.     Piscator  was  a  native  of  Strasburg,  and  a  member  of 

1  Baur,   Die   ChristUche  Lehre  von  der   Versohnung,  ii.  i.  1,  Tubingen,   1838,  p.  330, 
note. 


§  10.]   DEPARTURES  FROM  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.    183 

the  Lutheran  Church,  to  whose  service  his  first  ministerial  and 
professional  labors  were  devoted.  It  coming  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  that  in  his  exposition  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  he  denied  the  ubiquity  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  and  taught  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  he 
was  deprived  of  his  position  in  the  Lutheran  Church  and  passed 
over  to  the  Reformed.  He  was  soon  appointed  one  of  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  new  Listitution  of  Hebron  founded  by  the  Duke 
of  .Nassau.  He  remained  in  connection  with  that  institution 
from  1584  until  his  death  in  1625,  in  the  seventy-ninth  year  of 
his  age.  He  was  a  prolific  writer.  Besides  a  new  translation 
of  the  Bible,  he  wrote  numerous  commentaries  on  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  conducted  many  controversies 
■with  Lutherans  and  Romanists,  before  he  embroiled  himself  with 
the  theologians  of  his  own  church.^  He  took  the  ground  that 
the  "  imputatio  justitite  "  and  "  remissio  peccatorum  "  are  iden- 
tical ;  the  former  means  nothing  more  than  the  latter ;  and  con- 
sequently that  Christ's  work  consists  simply  in  the  expiation  of 
sin.  His  active  obedience  to  the  divine  law  constitutes  no  part 
of  the  righteousness  by  which  the  believer  is  justified  before  God, 
He  admits  that  Christ  rendered  a  twofold  obedience,  —  the  one 
to  the  law  of  God  as  a  rule  of  duty  ;  the  other  to  the  special 
command  given  to  Him  as  Mediator.  He  came  to  accomplish  a 
certain  work ;  to  do  the  will  of  the  Father,  which  was  to  make 
satisfaction  for  sin.  In  this  we  are  interested  ;  but  his  obedience 
to  the  moral  law  was  for  Himself,  and  was  the  necessary  condi- 
tion of  his  satisfaction.  He  could  not  have  made  atonement  for 
others  had  He  not  been  Himself  holy.  "  Tribuitur  morti,"  he 
says,^  "  quod  ei  tribuendura,  nimirum,  quod  sit  plenissima  satis- 
factio  pro  peccatis  nostris  ;  sic  etiam  vitas  obedientise  tribuitur, 
quod  scriptura  ei  tribuendum  perhibet,  nimirum,  quod  sit  causa, 
sine  qua  non  potuerat  Christus  idoneus  esse  mediator  inter  Deum 
et  hominem."  Although  Piscator  made  some  effort  to  prove 
exegetically  that  pardon  and  justification,  the  remission  of  sin 
and  imputation  of  righteousness,  are  identical,  yet  his  arguments 
against  the  received  doctrine,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  part 
of  our  justifying  righteousness,  are  not  Biblical.  The  question 
before  his  mind  was  not  simply.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  ? 
but,  What  is  true,  logical,  and  symmetrical?     He  saw  objections 

1  Theses  Theolog.,  vol.  iii.  locus  39:  "De  causa  meritoria  justificationis  hominis  coram 
I'eo,  sive  de  ea  re,  quae  a  Deo  ad  justitiam  imputatur." 
'^  Loc.  xxvi.  p.  331. 


184  PART  ni.     Ch.   XVn.  ~  JUSTIFICATION. 

to  the  imputation  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  which  seemed 
to  him  fatal,  and  on  the  gi-ound  of  those  objections  he  rejected 
the  doctrine.  Thus,  for  example,  he  argues  that  Christ's  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  was  due  from  Himself  as  a  man,  and  therefore 
not  imputable  to  others.  He  argues  thus,^  "  Qui  Christum  di- 
cunt  ubique  ut  hominem,  Christum  dicunt  non  hominem,  dum 
enim  dico  ubique,  dico  Deum,  qui  solus  est  in  coelo  et  in  terra. 
Similiter  cum  dico  subjectum  legi,  dico  hominem.  Qui  ergo 
Christum  subjectum  legi  negant,  negant  ipsum  esse  hominem." 
Every  man  as  such  in  virtue  of  being  a  man  is  individually- 
bound  to  obey  the  moral  law.  Christ  was  a  man ;  therefore  He 
was  bound  to  obey  the  law  for  Himself.  He  did  not  perceive,  or 
was  not  willing  to  admit,  that  the  word  "man"  is  taken  in  differ- 
ent senses  in  the  different  members  of  this  syllogism,  and  there- 
fore, the  conclusion  is  vitiated.  In  the  first  clause,  "man"  means 
a  human  person ;  in  the  second  clause,  it  means  human  nature. 
Christ  was  not  a  human  person,  although  He  assumed  human 
nature.  He  was  a  man  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  dust  and 
ashes.  But  because  Ave  are  dust,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  that 
may  be  predicated  of  dust,  may  be  predicated  of  us ;  e.  g.,  that 
we  have  no  life,  no  reason,  no  immortality.  In  like  manner, 
although  the  eternal  Son  of  God  took  upon  HimseK  a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  soul,  yet  as  He  was  a  divine  person,  it  does  not 
follow  that  everything  that  is  true  of  human  persons  must  be 
true  of  Him.  Piscator  also  argues  that  the  law  binds  either  to 
punishment  or  to  obedience,  but  not  to  both  at  once.  Therefore, 
if  Christ's  obedience  is  imputed  to  us,  there  was  no  necessity 
that  He  should  die  for  us.  On  the  other  hand,  if  He  died  for  us, 
there  was  no  necessity  that  He  should  obey  for  us.  The  principle 
here  assumed  may  be  true  with  regard  to  unfallen  man.  But 
where  sin  has  been  committed  there  is  need  of  expiation  as  well 
as  of  obedience,  and  of  obedience  as  well  as  expiation,  if  the  re- 
ward of  perfect  obedience  is  to  be  conferred.  Again,  he  says, 
if  Christ  has  fulfilled  the  law  for  us,  we  are  not  bound  to  keep  it. 
This  is  the  old  objection  of  the  Jews ;  if  justified  by  grace  we 
may  Hve  in  sin.  But  Christ  has  fulfilled  the  law  for  us  only  as 
a  covenant  of  works.  In  that  sense,  says  the  Apostle,  we  are 
not  under  the  law,  but  it  does  not  thence  follow  that  we  are  free 
from  all  moral  obligation  arising  from  our  relation  to  God,  as 
rational  creatures.  It  may  be  true  as  Baur,  himself  a  thorough 
skeptic  in  the  English  and  American  sense  of  that  word,  thinks, 

1  Loc.  xxvi.  p.  334. 


§  10  J       DEPARTURES   FROM   PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.         185 

that  this  innovation  of  Piscator  prepared  the  way  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  whole  Scriptural  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  Certain  it 
is  that  both  Lutherans  and  Reformed  united,  with  scarcely  a 
dissenting  voice,  in  the  condemnation  of  Piscator's  doctrine.  It 
was  judicially  repudiated  by  the  national  Synod  of  France  on 
several  different  occasions  ;  first  in  1603,  again  at  La  Rochelle 
in  1607,  and  afterwards  in  1612  and  1613.  The  Swiss  churches 
in  the  "  Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,"  which  received  symbol- 
ical authority  in  Switzerland,  pronounced  clearly  in  favour  of  the 
old  doctrine.  This  matter  was  soon  lost  sight  of  in  consequence 
of  the  rise  of  Arminianism  of  far  more  historical  importance. 

The  Arminian  Doctrine. 

Jacobus  Arminius,  a  man  of  learning,  talents,  attractive  ac- 
complishments, and  exemplary  character,  was  born  in  Holland 
1560,  and  died  professor  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  in  1609, 
having  filled  the  chair  of  theology  since  1603.  His  departures 
from  the  Reformed  doctrines  in  which  he  had  been  educated 
were  far  less  serious  than  those  of  his  successors,  although  involv- 
ing them,  apparently,  by  a  logical  necessity.  His  great  difficulty 
was  with  the  doctrine  of  predestination  or  the  sovereignty  of  God 
in  election.  He  could  not,  however,  get  rid  of  that  doctrine 
without  denying  the  entire  inability  of  man  to  do  what  is  spirit- 
ually good.  He,  therefore,  taught  that  although  mankind  fell 
in  Adam  and  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation,  and 
are  of  themselves  entirely  unable  to  turn  from  sin  to  holiness,  yet 
that  they  are  able  to  cooperate  mth  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
given  to  all  men,  especially  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  in  suffi- 
cient measure  to  enable  them  to  repent  and  believe,  and  to  per- 
severe in  holy  living  unto  the  end.  But  whether  any  man  does 
thus  repent  and  believe,  or,  having  believed,  perseveres  in  a  holy 
life,  depends  on  himself  and  not  on  God.  The  purpose  of  elec- 
tion, therefore,  is  not  a  purpose  to  save,  and  to  that  end  to  give 
faith  and  repentance  to  a  definite  number  of  individuals,  but  a 
purpose  to  save  those  who  repent,  believe,  and  persevere  in  faith 
until  the  end.  The  work  of  Christ  has,  therefore,  an  equal  ref- 
erence to  all  men.  He  made  full  satisfaction  to  God  for  the  sins 
of  all  and  every  man,  so  that  God  can  now  consistently  offer 
salvation  to  all  men  on  the  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Gospel. 

This  is  a  self-consistent  scheme.  One  part  imphes,  or  necessi- 
tates the  admission  of  the  others.  The  above  statement  includes 
all  the  doctrines  presented  by  the  followers  of  Arminius,  after 


186  PART  III.   ch.  xvn.  —  justification. 

his  death,  to  the  authorities  in  the  form  of  a  Remonstrance,  as  a 
justification  of  their  views.  Hence  the  Arminians  were  called 
Remonstrants.  The  document  just  mentioned  contains  the  five 
points  on  Avliich  its  authors  and  their  associates  differed  from  the 
Reformed  faith.  The  first  relates  to  predestination,  which  is  ex- 
plained as  the  purpose  "  illos  in  Christo,  propter  Christum  et  per 
Christum  servare,  qui  Spiritus  Sancti  gratia,  in  eundem  ejus  fil- 
ium  credunt,  et  in  ea,  fideique  obedientia,  per  eandem  gratiam 
in  finem  perseverant :  contra  vero  eos,  qui  non  convertentur  et 
infideles,  in  peccato  et  irse  subjectos  relinquere,  et  condemnare, 
secundum  illud  Evang.  Joann.  iii.  36." 

The  second  relates  to  the  work  of  Christ,  as  to  which  it  is  said, 
"  Proinde  Jesum  Christum  mundi  servatorem  pro  omnibus  et 
singuHs  mortuum  esse,  atque  ita  quidem,  ut  omnibus  per  mortem 
Christi  reconciliationem  et  peccatorum  remissionem  impetravit : 
ea  tamen  conditione,  ut  nemo  ilia  remissione  peccatorum  re  ipsa 
fruatur,  prseter  hominem  fidelem,  et  hoc  quoque  secundum  Evang. 
Joann.  iii.  16,  et  1  Joann.  ii.  2." 

The  third,  concerning  the  sinner's  ability,  declares,  "  Hominem 
vero  salutarem  fidem  a  se  ipso  non  habere,  nee  vi  liberi  sui 
arbitrii,  quandoquidem  m  statu  defectionis  et  peccati  nihil  boni, 
quandoquidem  vere  bonum  est,  quale  quid  est  fides  salutaris, 
ex  se  possit  cogitare,  vel  facere  :  sed  necessarium  esse  eum  a  Deo 
in  Christo  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  regigni  et  renovari  mente, 
affectibus,  seu  voluntate  et  omnibus  facultatibus,  ut  aliquid  boni 
possit  intelligere,  cogitare,  velle  et  perficere.  Ev.  Joann.  xv.  5." 
No  Augustinian,  whether  Lutheran  or  Calvinist,  can  say  more 
than  that,  or  desire  more  to  be  said  by  others. 

The  fourth  article,  concerning  grace,  however,  shows  the  point 
of  departure  :  "  Hanc  Dei  gratiam  esse  initium,  progressum  ac 
perfectionem  omnis  boni,  atque  id  eo  quidem  usque  ut  ipse  homo 
regenitus  absque  hac  prsecedentia,  seu  adventitia  excitante,  conse- 
quente  et  cooperante  gratia,  neque  boni  quid  cogitare,  velle,  aut 
facere  possit,  neque  etiam  ulli  mahe  tentatione  resistere  ;  adeo 
quidem  ut  omnia  bona  opera,  quae  excogitare  possumus,  Dei 
gratine  in  Christo  tribuenda  sint ;  quod  vero  modum  operationia 
illius  gratijE,  ilia  non  irresistibilis  ;  de  multis  enim  dicitur  eos 
Spiritui  Sancto  resistere.  Act.  vii.  51  et  alibi  multis  locis."  It 
was  not  to  be  expected,  in  a  brief  exposition  of  principles  de- 
signed for  the  justification  of  those  who  hold  them,  as  members 
of  a  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  church,  that  doubtful  terms  should 
be  explained.     It  is  beyond  controversy,  however,  and,  it  is  be- 


§  10]   DEPARTURES  FROM  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.    187 

lieved,  is  not  controverted,  that  irresistible  is  here  used  in  the 
sense  of  certainly  efficacious.  The  Holy  Spirit  operates  on  the 
hearts  of  all  men.  Some  are  thereby  renewed  and  brought  to 
faith  and  repentance ;  others  are  not.  This  difference,  according 
to  the  Remonstrants,  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  nature  of  the 
influence  exerted,  but  to  the  fact  that  some  yield  to  this  grace 
and  cooperate  with  it ;  while  others  reject  and  resist  it. 

The  fifth  article  refers  to  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  and 
is  indefinite.  It  admits  that  the  Spirit  furnishes  grace  abun- 
dantly sufficient  to  enable  the  believer  to  persevere  in  holiness  : 
"  Sed  an  illi  ipsi  negligentia  sua  initium  sui  esse  in  Christo 
deserere  non  possint,  et  prtesentem  munduni  iterum  amplecti,  a- 
sancta  doctrina  ipsis  semel  tradita  deficere,  conscientias  naufra- 
gium  facere,  a  gratia  excidere ;  penitus  ex  sacra  Scriptura  esset 
expendum,  antequam  illud  cum  plena  animi  tranquillitate  et 
TrXrjpixfiopLa  docere  possent."  Of  course  no  man  who  believed  the 
doctrine  could  write  thus,  and  this  doubtful  mode  of  expression 
was  soon  laid  aside,  and  "  falling  from  grace,"  in  the  common 
sense  of  the  phrase,  was  admitted  to  be  an  Arminian  doctrine. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  is  not  em- 
braced in  the  five  points  in  the  Remonstrance  as  presented  to  the 
authorities  in  Holland,  and  as  made  the  basis  of  the  decisions  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort.  The  aberration  of  the  Arminians,  however, 
from  the  faith  of  the  Reformed  churches,  extended  to  all  the 
doctrines  connected  with  the  plan  of  salvation.  Arminius  him- 
self, at  least,  held  far  higher  and  more  Scriptural  views  on  origi- 
nal sin,  inability,  and  the  necessity  of  supernatural  grace,  than 
those  which  have  since  become  so  prevalent  even  among  the  Re- 
formed or  Calvinistic  churches  themselves.  In  matters  concern- 
ing the  method  of  salvation,  especially  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
work  and  its  application  to  the  believer,  they  at  first  adhered 
closely  to  the  language  of  the  Reformed  confessions.  Thus  they 
did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Christ  made  full  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  men  ;  that  He  was  a  ransom,  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation  ; 
that  He  made  expiation  for  sin  ;  that  his  righteousness  or  obedi- 
ence is  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God ;  that  the  faith 
which  saves  is  not  mere  assent  to  truth,  or  pious  confidence  in 
God,  but  specifically  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men  ;  and 
that  justification  is  an  act  of  God  pronouncing  the  sinner  just, 
or  in  which  He  pardons  sin  and  accepts  the  sinner  as  righteous. 
All  this  is  satisfactory  to  the  ear.  Language,  however,  admits 
of   different  interpretations;    and  it  soon  became  apparent  and 


188  TART   III.     Cn.   XVII.  —  JUSTIFICATION. 

avowed  that  the  Remonstrants  mtended  something  very  different 
from  what  the  Reformed  Church  meant  to  express  by  the  same 
terms. 

1.  They  said  that  Clirist's  work  was  a  satisfaction  to  di\ane 
justice.  But  they  did  not  mean  by  satisfaction,  either  a  "  solu- 
tio,"  a  real  vahie  rendered  for  what  was  due  ;  nor  even  an  "  ac- 
ceptio,"  taking  one  thing  for  another  as  an  equivalent ;  but  an 
"  acceptilatio,"  a  gracious  acceptance  as  a  satisfaction  of  that 
which  in  its  own  nature  was  no  equivalent ;  as  though  God 
shoidd  accept  the  life  of  a  brute  for  that  of  a  man  ;  or  faith  for 
perfect  obedience.  Neither  did  the  Remonstrants  mean  by  jus- 
tice the  attribute  which  requires  the  righteous  distribution  of  re- 
wards and  punishments,  and  wliich  renders  it  necessary  that  the 
penalty  of  the  law  should  be  executed  in  case  of  transgression. 

With  regard  to  this  latter  point  (the  nature  of  justice)  the 
language  of  Grotius,  and  of  the  great  body  of  the  Remonstrant 
or  Arminian  theologians,  is  perfectly  explicit.  Grotius  says : 
"  Poenas  infligere,  aut  a  poenis  aliquem  liberare,  quem  punire 
possis,  quod  justificare  vocat  Scriptura,  non  est  nisi  rectoiis,  qua 
talis  primo  et  per  se  :  ut,  puta,  in  familia  patris  ;  in  republica 

regis,  in  universo  Dei Unde  sequitur,  omnino  hie  Deum 

considerandum,  ut  rectorem.''^  Again,'^  "Ratio  [cur  '  rectori 
relaxare  legem  talem  non  liceat,  nisi  causa  aliqua  accedat,  si  non 
necessaria,  certe  sufficiens']  ....  est,  quod  actus  ferendi  aut 
relaxandi  legem  non  sit  actus  absoluti  dorainii,  sed  actus  imperii, 
qui  tendere  debeat  ad  boni  ordinis  conservationem."  ^  "  Poena 
enim  omnis  propositum  habet  bonum  commune."  "  Prudentia 
quoque  hoc  nomine  rectorem  ad  poenam  incitat.  Augetur  pr^- 
terea  causa  puniendi,  ubi  lex  aliqua  publicata  est,  quas  poenam 
minatur.  Nam  tunc  omissio  poena  ferme  aliquid  detrahit  de 
legis  authoritate  apud  subditos."  ^ 

Here  everything  is  purely  governmental.  It  is  not  justice,  in 
the  proper  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  that  is  satisfied,  but 
God's  wise  and  benevolent  regard  to  the  interests  of  his  moral 
government.  This  changes  everything.  If  God's  justice  be  not 
satisfied  guilt  is  not  removed,  and  sin  is  not  expiated.  And  tliere- 
fore  conscience  is  not  appeased  ;  nor  can  the  real  authority  and 
honour  of  the  law  be  upheld. 

As  to  the  other  point,  the  nature  of  the  satisfaction  rendered  • 

1  De  Satisfactione  Christi,  cap.  2;    Worhs,  edit.  London,  1679,  vol.  iii.  p.  306,  b  (19-24) 
'  Ihid.  cap.  5;  p.  317,  b  (35-41).  8  md.  cap.  2;  p.  308,  b  (62,  63). 

Ihid.  cap.  5 ;  p.  316,  b  (9-13. ) 


§  10.]        DEPARTURES   FROM   PROTESTA^^T   DOCTRINE.         189 

it  was  not  a  real  equivalent,  which  by  its  intrinsic  value  met 
the  obligations  of  the  sinner,  but  it  was  something  graciously  ac- 
cepted as  such.  Although  Grotius  rejects  the  use  of  the  word 
"  acceptilatio,"  and  endeavours  to  show  that  it  does  not  express  his 
meaning,  nevertheless,  though  he  repudiates  the  word,  he  retains 
the  idea.  He  says,^  "  Ea  est  pretii  natura,  ut  sui  valore  aut  aes- 
timatione  alteram  moveat  ad  concedendam  rem,  aut  jus  aliquod, 
puta  impunitatem."  This  amounts  to  the  principle  of  Duns 
Scotus  that  a  thing  avails  (is  worth)  for  what  God  pleases  to 
take  it.  Although  Grotius  does  not  carry  out  the  principle  to 
the  length  to  which  the  Schoolmen  carried  it,  and  say  that  God 
might  have  accepted  the  death  of  one  man  as  a  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  the  world,  or  the  blood  of  bulls  or  of  goats  as  a  real  expi- 
ation, nevertheless,  he  teaches  that  God  graciously  accepted  "  ali- 
quid  pro  aliquo,"  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  death  for  all  the 
world,  not  because  of  its  being  a  real  equivalent  in  itself,  but  be- 
cause as  ruler,  having  the  right  to  remit  sin  without  any  satisfac- 
tion. He  saw  that  the  interests  of  his  government  could  thereby 
be  promoted.  Still  more  clearly  is  this  idea  expressed  by  Lim- 
borcli : ^  "In  eo  errant  quam  maxime,  quod  velint  redemtionis 
joretium  per  omnia  equivalens  esse  debere  miserige  illi,  e  qua  re- 
demtio  fit :  redemtionis  pretium  enim  constitui  solet  pro  libera 
sestimatione  illius,  qui  captivum  detinet,  non  autem  solvi  pro  cap- 

tivi  merito Ita  pretium,  quod  Christus  persolvit,  juxta 

Dei  Patris  sestimationem  persolutum  est." 

According  to  Grotius,  Christ  died  as  an  example,  "  exemplum 
poense."  The  whole  efficacy  of  his  work  was  its  moral  impres- 
sion on  the  universe.  It  was  not  an  expiation  or  satisfaction  for 
past  sins,  but  a  means  of  deterring  from  the  commission  of  sin  in 
the  future.  This,  as  Baur  ^  and  Strauss  *  remark,  is  the  point  in 
which  the  theory  of  Grotius  and  that  of  Socinus  coincide.  They 
both  refer  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  work  to  the  moral  impression 
which  it  makes  on  the  minds  of  intelligent  creatures.  They  refer 
that  moral  influence,  indeed,  to  different  causes,  but  moral  impres- 
sion is  all  the  efficacy  it  has.  Although  the  word  satisfaction  is 
retained  by  Grotius,  the  idea  attached  to  it  by  the  Church  is  re- 
jected. The  leading  Remonstrant  or  Arminian  theologians,  as 
Episcopius,  CurcellEeus,  and  Limborch,  differ  from  Grotius  in  their 
mode  of  presenting  this  subject.  Instead  of  regarding  the  work 
of  Clirist  as  an  example  of  punishment,  designed  to  deter  from 

1  De  SatisfacHone,  cap.  8;  Works,  edit  Loudon,  1079,  vol.  iii.  p.  328,  b  (12-1  i). 

2  Theologia  Christiana,  iii.  xxi.  8,  edit.  Amsterdam,  171.5,  p.  262,  a. 

3  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  ii.  i.  4,  Tiibingen,  1838,  p.  429. 
*  Dogmatik,  Tiibingen  and  Stuttgart,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  315. 


190  PART  III.     Cii.  XVII.  —  JUSTIFICATION. 

the  coinmission  of  sin,  they  adhere  to  the  Scriptural  mode  of  re- 
garding Him  as  a  ransom  and  sacrifice.  The  difference  however 
is  more  in  form  than  in  reaUty,  They  admit  that  Christ  redeems 
us  by  giving  Himself  as  a  ransom  for  many.  But  a  ransom,  as 
Curcellauis  says,  is  not  an  equivalent ;  it  is  anything  the  holder  of 
the  captive  sees  fit  to  accept.  It  is  admitted,  also,  that  Christ 
gave  Himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  salvation ;  but  a  sacrifice  is 
said  not  to  be  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  but  simply  the  condition 
on  which  pardon  is  granted.  Under  the  Old  Testament  God 
pardoned  sin  on  the  occasion  of  the  sacrifice  of  irrational  animals ; 
under  the  New  Testament,  on  the  occasion  of  the  sacrifice  of 
Clrrist.  "  Sacrificia,"  says  Limborch,^  "  non  sunt  solutiones  debi- 
torum,  neque  plenarise  pro  peccatis  satisfactiones  ;  sed  illis  perac- 
tis  conceditur  gratuita  peccati  remissio."  "  Redemtionis  pretium 
constitui  solet  pro  libera  a3stimatione  illius,  qui  captivum  detinet." 
We  know,  however,  from  Scripture  that  a  sacrifice  was  not  merely 
an  arbitrarily  appointed  antecedent  of  gratuitous  forgiveness  ;  it 
was  not  simply  an  acknowledgment  of  guilt.  We  know  also  that 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  vmder  the  Old  Testament  could 
not  take  away  sin  ;  it  availed  only  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh, 
or  the  remission  of  ceremonial  penalties.  The  only  efficacy  of 
the  Old  Testament  sacrifices,  so  far  as  sin  committed  against 
God  is  concerned,  was  sacramental ;  that  is,  they  signified,  sealed, 
and  applied  the  benefits  of  the  only  real  and  effectiial  expiation 
for  sin,  to  those  who  believed.  As  the  victim  symbolically  bore 
the  penalty  due  to  the  offender,  so  the  eternal  Son  of  God  really 
bore  our  sins,  really  became  a  curse  for  us,  and  thus  made  a  true 
and  perfect  satisfaction  to  God  for  our  offences. 

2.  As  the  Remonstrants  denied  that  Christ's  work  was  a  real 
satisfaction  for  sin,  they  of  necessity  denied  any  real  justification 
of  the  sinner.  Justification  with  them  is  merely  pardon.  This 
is  asserted  by  Grotius  in  the  passage  above  cited ;  and  even  the 
Rev.  Richard  Watson,  whose  excellent  system  of  theology,  or 
"  Theological  Institutes,"  is  deservedly  in  high  repute  among  the 
Wesleyan  Methodists,  not  only  over  and  over  defines  justification 
as  pardon,  but  elaborately  argues  the  question.  "  The  first  point,." 
he  says,  "  which  we  find  established  by  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  is,  that  justification,  the  pardon  and  remission  of  sins, 
the  non-imputation  of  sin,  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness, 
are  terms  and  phrases  of  the  same  import."  ^  He  then  goes  on  to 
establish  that  position. 

1  -rTteolofiia  Chvht'nm,  in.  xxi.  6,  8,  ut  mjyra,  pp.  2.11,  a,  2G2,  a. 

2  II.  xxiii ;  edit.  New  York,  1832,  p.  426. 


§  10.]   DEPARTURES  FROM  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.    191 

If  therefore,  pardon  and  justification  are  distinct  tilings,  the 
one  the  executive  act  of  a  ruler,  the  otiier  a  judicial  act ;  the  one 
setting  aside  the  demands  of  justice,  the  other  a  declaration  that 
justice  is  satisfied  ;  then  those  who  reduce  justification  to  mere 
pardon,  deny  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  understood  and  pro- 
fessed by  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches.  It  of  course  is 
not  intended  that  these  Remonstrant  or  Arminian  theologians  do 
not  hold  what  they  call  justification  ;  nor  is  it  denied  that  they 
at  times,  at  least,  express  their  doctrine  in  the  very  language  of 
the  Symbols  of  the  Protestant  churches.  Thus  the  Remonstrants  ^ 
say,  "  Justificatio  est  actio  Dei,  quam  Deus  pure  pute  in  sua  ip- 
sius  mente  efiicit,  quia  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  volitio  aut  decretum, 
quo  peccata  remittere,  et  justitiam  imputare  aliquando  vult  iis, 
qui  credunt,  id  est,  quo  vult  poenas,  peccatis  eorum  promeritas, 
iis  non  infligere,  eosque  tanquam  justos  tractare  et  premio  affi- 
cere."  Nevertheless  they  tell  us  that  they  mean  by  this  only 
pardon.  Protestants,  when  they  say  justification  includes  pardon 
"  and  "  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  mean  two  distinct  things 
by  pardon  and  imputation  of  righteousness.  The  Remonstrants 
regard  them  as  identical,  and,  therefore,  can  use  the  very  language 
of  Protestants,  while  rejecting  their  doctrine.  As  every  one  feels 
and  laiows  that  when  a  criminal  is  pardoned  by  the  executive, 
and  allowed  to  resume  his  rights  of  property  and  right  of  voting, 
he  is  not  thereby  justified ;  so  every  candid  mind  must  admit 
that  there  is  an  immense  difference  between  the  Remonstrant  or 
Arminian  doctrine  of  justification  and  that  held  as  the  cardinal 
principle  of  the  Reformation  by  both  Lutherans  and  Reformed. 

3.  This  difference  becomes  still  more  apparent  when  we  con- 
sider what  the  Remonstrants  make  the  ground  of  justification. 
As  they  deny  that  Christ  made  any  real  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice  (as  distinguished  from  benevolence),  so  they  deny  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  the  believer  as  the 
ground  of  his  justification.  On  this  point,  Limborch  ^  says, 
"  Haec  autem,  qua3  nobis  imputatur,  non  est  Christi  justitia ;  nus- 
quam  enim  Scriptura  docet,  Christi  justitiam  nobis  imputari  ;  sed 
tantum  fidem  nobis  imputari  in  justitiam,  et  quidem  propter 
Christum."  And  Curcellsus  ^  says,  "  Nullibi  docet  Scriptura 
justitiam  Christi  nobis  imputari.  Et  id  absurdum  est.  Nemo 
enim  in  se  injustus  aliena  justitia  potest  esse  formaliter  Justus, 
non  magis,  quam  aliena  albedine  ^Ethiops  esse  albus." 

1  Apologia  pro  Confessione  Remonstrant ium,  cap.  11,  12 ;  Episcopii  Opera,  edit.  Rotter- 
dam, 1665,  vol.  ii.  p.  166,  a,  of  second  set. 

2  Theuloyia  Christiana,  vi.  iv.  18,  ut  siqira,  p.  703,  a.        ^  Relig.  Christ.  Inst.  7,  9,  6. 


192  PART  III.     Ch.   XVIL  — justification. 

As  tlie  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  hnputed  to  the  believer, 
the  ground  of  his  justification,  that  which  is  accepted  as  right- 
eousness, is  faith  and  its  fruits,  or  faith  and  evangehcal  obedience. 
On  this  subject  Limborch  says,^  that  under  the  new  covenant 
God  demands  "  obedientiam  fidei,  hoc  est,  non  rigidam  et  omnibua 
aequalem,  prout  exigebat  lex  ;  sed  tantam,  quantam  fides,  id  est, 
certa  de  divinis  promissionibus  persuasio,  in  unoquoque  efl&cere 
potest ;  in  qua  etiam  Deus  multas  imperfectiones  et  lapsus  con- 
donat,  modo  animo  sincero  praeceptoruni  ipsius  observationi  in- 
cumbanius,  et  continue  in  eadeiii  proficere  studeamus." 

And  again,^  "  Deus  non  judicat  hominum  justitiam  esse  per- 
fectam,  imo  earn  judicat  esse  imperfectam ;  sed  justitiam,  quam 
imperfectam  judicat,  gratiose  accipit  ac  si  perfecta  esset."  He, 
therefore,''^  thus  defines  justification,  "  Est  gratiosa  gestimatio,  seu 
potius  acceptatio  justitiae  nostrae  imperfectas  (quas,  si  Deus  rigide 
nobiscum  agere  vellet,  in  judicio  Dei  nequaquam  consistere  posset) 
pro  perfecta,  propter  Jesum  Christum." 

The  same  view  is  presented  when  he  speaks  of  faith  in  its  rela- 
tion to  justification.  Faith  is  said  to  be  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness ;  but  Limborch  says,*  "  Sciendum,  quando  dicimus,  nos  fide 
justificari,  nos  non  excludere  opera,  quae  fides  exigit  et  tanquam 
foecunda  mater  producit ;  sed  ea  includere."  Again,^  "  Fides  est 
conditio  in  nobis  et  a  nobis  requisita,  ut  justificationem  conse- 
quamur.  Est  itaque  talis  actus,  qui,  licet  in  se  spectatus  per- 
fectus  nequaquam  sit,  sed  in  multis  deficiens,  tamen  a  Deo  gratiosa 
et  hberrima  voluntate  pro  pleno  et  perfecto  acceptatur  et  prop- 
ter quern  Deus  homini  gratiose  remissionem  peccatorum  et  vitaB 
jeternae  premium  conferre  vult." 

Fletcher  ^  says,  "  With  respect  to  the  Christless  law  of  paradi- 
saical obedience,  we  entirely  disclaim  sinless  perfection."  "  We 
shall  not  be  judged  by  that  law ;  but  by  a  law  adapted  to  our 
present  state  and  circumstances,  a  milder  law,  called  the  law  of 
Christ."  "  Our  Heavenly  Father  never  expects  of  us,  in  our 
debilitated  state,  the  obedience  of  immortal  Adam  in  paradise." 

Dr.  Peck'^  says,  "  The  standard  of  character  set  up  in  the  Gospel 
must  be  such  as  is  practicable  by  man,  fallen  as  he  is.  Coming" 
up  to  this  standard  is  what  we  call  Christian  perfection." 

1  Theologia  Christiana,  vi.  iv.  37,  ut  supra,  p.  706,  a. 

2  IMd.  VI.  iv.  41 ;  p.  706,  b,  707,  a. 

8  I7n(I.  VI.  iv.  18;  p.  703,  a.  *  Ibid.  VI.  iv.  32;  p.  705,  b. 

6  Ibid.  VI.  iv.  31 ;  p.  705,  a. 

*  Last  Check  to  Antinoinianism,  sect,  i;  JVorls,  N.  Y.  1833,  vol.  ii.  pp.  493,  494. 
1  Christian  Perfection,  Xew  York,  1843,  p.  294. 


§10.]       DEPARTURES   FROM  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.         193 

Under  tlie  covenant  of  works  as  made  with  Adam,  perfect 
obedience  was  the  condition  of  acceptance  with  God  and  of  eternal 
life  ;  under  the  Gospel,  for  Christ's  sake,  imperfect,  or  evangelical 
obedience,  is  the  ground  of  justification,  i.  e.,  it  is  that  (propter 
quam)  on  account  of  which  God  graciously  grants  us  the  remission 
of  sin  and  the  reward  of  eternal  life. 

We  have  then  the  tlu-ee  great  systems.  First,  that  of  the  Ro- 
manists, which  teaches  that  on  account  of  the  work  of  Christ 
God  grants,  through  Christian  baptism,  an  infusion  of  divine 
grace,  by  which  all  sin  is  purged  from  the  soul  and  all  ground  for 
the  infliction  of  the  penalty  is  removed  and  the  smner  rendered 
inherently  just  or  holy.  This  is  the  first  justification.  Then  in 
virtue  of  the  new  principle  of  spiritual  life  thus  imparted,  the 
baptized  or  regenerated  are  enabled  to  perform  good  works,  which 
are  really  meritorious  and  on  account  of  which  they  are  admitted 
to  heaven. 

Secondly,  the  Arminian  theory,  that  on  account  of  what  Christ 
has  done,  God  is  pleased  to  grant  sufficient  grace  to  all  men,  and 
to  accept  the  imperfect  obedience  which  the  believer  is  thus  en- 
abled to  render  in  lieu  of  the  perfect  obedience  required  under 
the  covenant  made  with  Adam,  and  on  account  of  that  imperfect 
obedience,  eternal  life  is  graciously  bestowed. 

Thirdly,  the  Protestant  doctrine  that  Christ,  as  the  representa- 
tive and  substitute  of  sinners  or  of  his  people,  takes  their  place 
under  the  law,  and  in  their  name  and  in  their  behalf  fulfils  all 
righteousness,  thereby  making  a  real,  perfect,  and  infinitely  mer- 
itorious satisfaction  to  the  law  and  justice  of  God,  which  right- 
eousness is  imputed,  or  set  to  the  account  of  the  believer,  who  is 
thereupon  and  on  that  account  freely  pardoned  and  pronounced 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  entitled  not  only  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sin  but  also  to  eternal  life.  Being  united  to  Christ  by 
faith,  the  believer  becomes  partaker  of  his  life,  so  that  it  is  not 
he  that  lives  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  him,  and  the  life  which 
the  believ?ir  now  lives  in  the  flesh  is  by  faith  of  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  him,  and  gave  HimseK  for  him. 

Comparison  of  the  Different  Doctrines. 
The  first  remark  which  suggests  itself  on  the  comparison  of 
these  several  schemes  is,  that  the  relation  between  the  believer 
and  Christ  is  far  more  close,  peculiar,  and  constant  on  the  Protes- 
tant scheme  than  on  any  other.  He  is  dependent  on  Him  every 
hour  ;  for  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  ;  for  the  suppKes  of 

VOL.   III.  13 


194  TART  III.     Ch.   XVII.— justification. 

.the  Spirit  of  life  ;  and  for  his  care,  guidance,  and  intercession. 
He  must  look  to  Him  continually  ;  and  continually  exercise  faith 
in  Him  as  an  ever  psesent  Saviour  in  order  to  live.  According  to 
the  other  schemes,  Christ  has  merely  made  the  salvation  of  all 
men  possible.  There  his  v^ork  ended.  According  to  Romanists, 
He  has  made  it  possible  that  God  should  give  sanctifying  grace  in 
baptism ;  according  to  the  Remonstrants,  He  has  rendered  it  pos- 
sible for  Him  to  give  sufficient  grace  to  all  men  whereby  to  sanc- 
tify and  save  themselves.  We  are  well  aware  that  this  is  theory  ; 
that  the  true  people  of  God,  whether  Romanists  or  Remonstrants, 
do  not  look  on  Christ  thus  as  a  Saviour  afar  off.  They  doubtless 
have  the  same  exercises  towards  Him  that  their  fellow  behevers 
have  ;  nevertheless,  such  is  the  theory.  The  theory  places  a  great 
gulf  between  the  soul  and  Christ. 

Secondly,  it  hardly  admits  of  question  that  the  Protestant 
view  conforms  to  the  Scriptural  mode  of  presenting  the  plan  of 
salvation.  Christ  in  the  Bible  is  declared  to  be  the  head  of  his 
people,  their  representative  ;  they  were  in  Him  in  such  a  sense 
that  they  died  in  Him  ;  they  are  raised  vnth.  Him,  and  sit  with 
Him  in  heavenly  places.  They  were  in  Him  as  the  race  was  in 
Adam,  and  as  branches  are  in  the  vine.  They  individually  receive 
the  sprinkling  of  that  blood  which  cleanses  from  all  sin.  They 
are  constituted  righteous  by  his  obedience.  As  He  was  made  sin 
for  them,  so  are  they  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him.  He 
is  not  only  an  example  of  punishment  as  Grotius  represents,  a 
mere  governmental  device,  but  a  sacrifice  substituted  for  us,  on 
whose  head  every  beUever  must  lay  his  hand  and  to  whom  he 
must  transfer  the  burden  of  his  sins. 

Thirdly,  what  is  included  indeed  in  the  above,  but  is  so  impor- 
tant and  decisive  as  to  require  distinct  and  repeated  mention  ;  all 
schemes,  other  than  the  Protestant,  refer  the  proximate  ground 
of  our  acceptance  with  God  to  our  own  subjective  character.  It 
is  because  of  our  own  goodness  that  we  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
righteous.  Whereas  conscience  demands,  the  Scriptures  reveal, 
and  the  believer  instinctively  seeks  something  better  than  that. 
His  own  goodness  is  badness.  It  cannot  satisfy  his  own  bleared 
vision ;  how  then  can  it  appear  before  the  eyes  of  God  ?  It 
matters  not  how  the  Romanist  may  exalt  his  "  inward  habits  of 
grace  ;  "  or  how  the  Arminian  may  sublimate  his  evangelical 
obedience  to  perfection  ;  neither  can  satisfy  either  the  conscience 
or  God. 

Fourthly,  the  Protestant  doctrine  is  the  only  one  on  which  tlie 


§  11.]  MODERN  THEORIES.  195 

soul  can  live.  Tliis  has  been  urged  before  -when  speaking  of  the 
work  of  Christ.  It  is  fair  to  appeal  from  theology  to  hymnology  ; 
from  the  head  to  the  heart ;  from  what  man  thinks  to  what  God 
makes  men  feel.  It  is  enough  to  say  on  this  point,  that  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Christians  can  find  nowhere,  out  of  the  Bible, 
more  clear,  definite,  soul-satisfying  expression  of  their  doctrinal 
views  upon  this  subject,  than  are  to  be  found  in  many  of  the 
hymns  of  the  Latin  and  Arminian  churches.  As  a  single  ex- 
ample may  be  cited  the  following  stanzas  from  John  Wesley's 
"  Hymns  and  Spiritual  Songs  "  :  — 

"  Join,  earth  and  heaven  to  bless 
The  Lord  our  Eighteousness. 
The  mystery  of  redemption  this, 
This  the  Saviour's  strange  design  — 
Man's  offence  was  counted  his. 
Ours  his  righteousness  divine. 

"  In  Him  complete  we  shine ; 
His  death,  his  life,  is  mine; 
Fully  am  I  justified, 
Free  from  sin,  and  more  than  free, 
Guiltless,  since  for  me  He  died; 
Righteous,  since  He  lived  for  me." 

§  11.  Modern  Views  on  Justification. 
Rationalistic   Theories. 

These  cannot  be  given  in  detail.  Certain  classes  of  opinions 
can  be  referred  to  only  in  the  briefest  manner.  The  Rationahsts 
were  divided  into  two  classes  ;  first,  those  who  regarded  the 
Scriptures  as  a  supernatural  revelation  of  natural  religion,  or  of 
the  truths  of  reason  ;  and  secondly,  those  who  denied  the  super- 
natural origin  of  the  Scriptures  altogether,  assigning  to  them  no 
higher  authority  than  belongs  to  the  writings  of  good  and  wise 
men. 

The  former  class  came  to  agree  very  nearly  with  the  latter  as 
to  what  the  Bible  actually  teaches,  or,  at  least,  as  to  what  is  by 
us  to  be  regarded  and  received  as  true.  Those  who  admitted  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures  got  rid  of  its  distinctive  doctrines 
by  the  adoption  of  a  low  theory  of  inspiration,  and  by  the  appH- 
cation  of  arbitrary  principles  of  interpretation.  Inspiration  was, 
in  the  first  instance,  confined  to  the  religious  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  then  to  the  ideas  or  truths,  but  not  to  the  form  in  which 
the}^  were  presented,  nor  to  the  arguments  by  which  they  were 
supported.  The  fact  that  Christ  saves  men  in  some  way  was  ad- 
mitted, but  not  as  a  sacrifice  nor  as  a  ransom,  nor  by  being  a 


196  PART  HI.   ch.  xvn.  —  justification. 

substitute  for  sinners.  The  miracles  of  Christ  were  acknowledged 
as  historical  facts,  but  they  were  explained  as  mere  natural  events 
distorted  by  the  imaginations  of  spectators  and  historians.  It 
was  granted  by  some  that  Christ  and  the  Apostles  did  teach 
the  Church  doctrines,  but  this,  it  was  said,  was  done  only  by  way 
of  accommodation  to  the  prejudices,  superstitions,  or  modes  of 
thought  of  the  men  of  that  generation.  The  first  step  in  this 
process  was  the  denial  of  all  distinction  between  the  prophetic, 
priestly,  and  kingly  offices  of  Christ.  In  this  way  a  wet  sponge 
was  passed  over  all  the  doctrines  of  redemption,  and  their  out- 
lines obhterated.  This  unnatural  j)rocess  could  not  be  long  con- 
tinued, and,  therefore,  the  majority  of  Rationalists  soon  threw  off 
all  regard  to  the  normal  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  avowed  their 
faith  in  nothing  which  did  not  commend  itself  to  their  own  un- 
derstanding as  true,  and  for  that  reason  alone. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  justification,  the  whole  tendency  of  the 
efforts  during  this  period  was,  as  Baur  correctly  says,^  to  make 
the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God  the  work  of  the  man  himself. 
"  A  man  was  entitled  to  regard  liimself  as  reconciled  with  God 
as  soon  as  he  determined  to  repent  and  to  reform."  God  was  re- 
garded as  a  father.  A  father  is  displeased  with  a  son  only  so 
long  as  he  is  disobedient.  The  only  end  of  any  chastisement  he 
may  inflict,  is  the  reformation  of  his  child.  If  that  be  accom- 
phshed,  all  necessity  and  all  propriety  of  punishment  cease. 
Wegscheider,  a  representative  of  this  class  of  theologians,  says,^ 
"  Quicunque  e  vita  turpi,  qua  poenas  sibi  contraxit,  ad  virtutem 
emerserit,  is  eadem  proportione,  qua  jam  in  virtutis  studio  pro- 
gressus  fuerit,  in  gratiam  cum  Deo  reversus,  ab  eodem  prtemiis 
dignus  judicabitur." 

Philosophical  Theories. 

The  philosophical  theories  on  this  subject  were  as  different  as 
the  systems  on  which  they  were  founded.  Some  of  these  systems 
were  theistic,  others  pantheistic,  and  others  monistic,  i.  e.,  founded 
ou  the  oneness  of  God  and  man,  without  denying  the  distinct 
personality  of  either. 

The  influence  of  Kant's  philosophy  upon  theology,  for  a  time 
at  least,  was  very  great,  and  in  some  aspects  salutary.  As  he 
exalted  the  power  of  the  pure  rea^i)n,  making  it  give  law  to  the 
out  Trard,  subordinating,  as  his  disciples  say,  the  objective  to  the 

1  Die  ChristUche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  iii.  i.  Tubingen,  1830,  p.  565. 
a  Institutiones  Theoloij'm,  m.  ii.  §  140,  5th  edit.  Halle,  1826,  p.  438. 


§11,]  MODERN  THEORIES.  197 

subjective,  so  in  the  sphere  of  religion  and  morality  he  exalted 
the  power  and  authority  of  the  practical  reason.  Everything 
was  subordinate  to  moral  excellence^  Happiness  was  not  the 
end  It  was  only  a  means  of  promoting  and  rewarding  what  is 
moi'ally  good.  The  attainment  of  the  highest  amount  of  moral 
excellence  requires  perfect  harmony  between  happiness  and  good- 
ness, that  is,  that  rational  creatures  should  be  happy  in  exact 
proportion  to  their  goodness,  and  miserable  in  proportion  as  they 
are  wicked.  The  punishment  of  sin  is  therefore  inevitable.  It 
is  determined  by  the  immutable  moral  order  of  the  universe, 
wliich  can  no  more  be  changed  or  set  aside  than  any  physical  law 
on  which  the  existence  or  order  of  the  external  world  depends. 

From  these  principles  some  of  the  Kantian  theologians  inferred 
that  the  pardon  of  sin  is  impossible.  Misery  is  as  inseparable 
from  sin  as  pain  is  from  the  laceration  of  the  body.  If  the  only 
punishment  of  sin,  however,  be  its  natural  consequences,  then  the 
removal  of  sin  effects  the  removal  of  punishment.  This  deter- 
mines the  view  which  many  of  the  disciples  of  Kant  take  of  the 
nature  of  redemption.  It  is  purely  subjective.  Men  are  dehvered 
from  sin  and  thereby  from  its  punishment. 

To  others,  however,  this  view  was  unsatisfactory,  (1.)  Because 
the  punishment  of  sin  is  not  purely  or  exclusively  natural.  It  is 
not  so  even  in  this  world,  as  is  proved  by  the  deluge,  by  the  de- 
struction of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  and  by  a  thousand  other  in- 
stances. Much  less  is  it  true  with  regard  to  the  future  world. 
Conscience  is  not  the  only  worm  that  never  dies,  or  remorse  the 
only  fire  which  is  never  quenched.  (2.)  Because  this  theory- 
re  verses  the  natural  order  of  events.  It  makes  reformation  pre- 
cede pardon,  whereas  pardon  must  precede  reformation.  On  this 
point  Bretschneider  ^  quotes  even  Ewald  ''^  as  saying,  "  It  is  as 
unpsychological  as  it  is  unchristian  so  to  present  Christian  refor- 
mation, that  a  man  must  become  better  before  he  is  forgiven.  It 
is  precisely  through  the  love  of  God  anticipating  our  reformation, 
by  which  the  man  morally  dead  is  quickened,  that  the  elements  of 
all  rehgion,  gratitude,  trust,  and  love  are  called  into  exercise." 
This  is  certainly  Paul's  doctrine.  (3.)  The  theory  in  question 
overlooks  guilt,  responsibility  to  justice  for  sins  already  commit- 
ted. (4.)  The  ends  of  punishment  (according  to  the  Kantians) 
are,  first,  the  satisfaction  of  the  moral  excellence  of  God,  who 
by  necessity  of  his  moral  perfection  must  punish  sin  ;  secondly, 

1  Bofpnaflk,  §  159,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1828,  vol.  ii.  p.  320,  note. 

2  Die  Reliyiunslthren  dtr  Bibd,  ii.  v.  zu  nro.  27;  Stuttgart  and  TUbingen,  1812,  vol 
ii.  p.  149. 


198  PART  in.     Cn.   XYII.  —  JUSTIFICATION. 

the  improvement  of  the  offender ;  and  thirdly,  the  upholding  the 
moral  order  of  the  universe.  The  two  former  of  these  ends, 
Bretschneider  says,  may  be  answered  by  the  reformation  of  the 
sinner.  When  a  man  ceases  to  sin,  he  ceases  to  be  opposed  to 
God,  and  God  cea,ses  tp  be  opposed  to  him.  But  the  third  end  of 
punishment,  namely,  preserving  the  moral  order  of  the  universe, 
is  not  answered  by  the  sinner's  reformation.  He  is  not  the  only 
person  to  be  considered.  The  interests  of  morality  would  suffer, 
if  he  were  rendered  happy  notmthstanding  his  past  transgression. 
The  question  then  is,  is  there  any  way  in  which  the  authority  of 
the  moral  law  can  be  sustained,  and  yet  the  sinner  be  forgiven  and 
rendered  blessed  ?  The  Church  answer  to  this  question,  the  dis- 
ciples of  Kant  reject  as  contrary  to  reason  ;  but  reason,  says  Bret- 
schneider, has  nothing  to  object  to  the  doctrine  stated  generally 
that  God  can  consistently  pardon  sin  for  Christ's  sake.  He  sums 
up  under  the  following  heads,  what  reason  may  accept  in  regard 
to  this  whole  subject.  (1.)  That  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
rendered  his  sufferings  more  important  for  the  spiritual  world 
and  more  available  for  man  than  they  othermse  would  have 
been.  (2.)  "VVe  cannot  properly  say  that  He  suffered  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  or  the  punishment  of  our  sins,  but  that  He  endured 
his  unmerited  sufferings  for  the  good  of  the  world.  (3.)  That 
He  did  not  make  satisfaction  for  sin,  but  rendered  secure  the 
moral  order  of  the  universe.  (4.)  Although  He  did  not  make 
satisfaction.  He  procured  or  mediated  our  pardon.  He  is  not  our 
sponsor,  but  our  "  mediator  salutis."  (5.)  The  expression  "  the 
merit  of  Christ  "  does  not  mean  any  good  imputed  to  us,  or  any 
title  belonging  to  us,  but  simply  the  claim  of  Christ  that  his  suf- 
ferings shall  avail  to  the  good  of  men.  (6.)  The  word  "  recon- 
ciliation "is  anthropopathic.  It  does  not  express  any  change  in 
God ;  but  either  objectively  the  possibility  of  pardon,  or  subjec- 
tively the  hope  of  pardon.  (7.)  "  To  impute  the  merit  of  Christ " 
does  not  mean  that  God  regards  Christ's  obedience  as  our  obe- 
dience, or  his  sufferings  as  our  punishment,  but  simply  that, 
through  love,  God  has  determined  to  render  his  sufferings  avail- 
able for  the  good  of  men.  (8.)  That  Clirist's  death  was  vicari- 
ous in  so  far  that  in  consequence  thereof  sin  may  be  pardoned  in 
the  renewed.  (9.)  Justification  is  the  application  to  individuals 
of  the  general  declaration  of  God  that  He  will  save  all  who  strive 
to  reform.  This  is  the  highest  form  in  which  theologians  regarded 
as  rationalistic  are  willing  to  receive  the  doctrines  of  atonement 
and  justification. 


§  11.]  MODERN   THEORIES  199 

Speculative    Theologians. 

The  views  of  the  speculative  theologians  on  these  points  have 
already  been  presented  in  the  chapters  on  the  person  of  Christ 
and  on  his  work,  as  fully  as  is  proper  in  such  a  work  as  this. 

However  much  this  class  of  theologians  may  differ  as  to  their 
philosophical  principles,  or  as  to  the  length  to  which  they  carry 
those  principles  in  their  explanation  of  Christian  doctrine,  they 
agree,  first,  in  rejecting  the  Church  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation  ; 
they  deny  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  and  bore  its  penalty  vica- 
riously, or  as  the  substitute  of  sinners  ;  they  deny  that  his  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  the  believer  as  the  ground  of  his  justifica- 
tion ;  they  deny  that  saving  faith  consists  in  receiving  and  resting 
on  the  righteovisness  of  Christ  as  something  objective  ;  they  deny 
that  justification  is  a  forensic  or  judicial  act  in  which  God  pro- 
nounces the  sinner  just,  not  on  the  ground  of  his  subjective  state 
or  character,  but  on  the  ground  of  what  Christ  has  done  for  him. 
All  this  they  pronounce  mechanical,  external,  magical,  unreal, 
and  unsatisfactory.  On  the  other  hand,  they  agree  in  represent- 
ing justification  as  an  act  by  which  the  sinner  is  made  inherently 
or  subjectively  just ;  and  consequently  that  his  acceptance  with 
God,  and  his  title  to  eternal  life,  are  founded  on  what  he  is ; 
they  agree  in  regarding  faith  as  that  state  of  mind  which  renders 
the  sinner  receptive  of  the  infusion  of  whatever  it  is  that  renders 
him  thus  subjectively  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  What  that 
is,  is  the  main  point  on  which  their  representations  differ.  Those 
who  regard  man  as  only  a  form  of  the  manifestation  of  God,  say 
that  one  man's  being  justified  and  not  another,  means  that  God 
is  more  fully  developed  in  the  one  than  in  the  other  ;  or  that 
the  one  realizes  more  truly  the  idea  of  man  than  the  other ;  and 
this,  after  all,  consists  in  one's  coming  to  the  consciousness  of  his 
oneness  with  God,  which  others  have  not  attained.  "  The  most 
universal  and  essential  idea  of  redemption  and  reconciliation  is 
man's  becoming  one  Avith  God.  The  necessary  objective  assump- 
tion, on  which  alone  the  individual  can  be  one  with  God,  or  re- 
deemed and  reconciled,  is  the  truth,  that  man  as  such  is  one  with 
God  (dass  der  Mensch  an  sich  mit  Gott  Eins  ist)."^  This,  ac- 
cording to  one  view,  is  an  eternal  process ;  God  is  ever  becoming 
man,  and  man  is  ever  returning  into  God.  According  to  Schleier- 
macher,  as  already  repeatedly  stated,  this  manifestation  of  God  in 
man  was  hindered  and  could  never  become  perfect  by  a  process 

1  Baur,  Die  Chr'istUche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  Tubingen,  1838,  p.  628. 


200  PART  III.   ch.  xvir.— justification. 

of  natural  development ;  and,  therefore,  by  a  new  creative  act 
Christ  was  produced,  in  whom  the  idea  of  man  was  fully  real- 
ized, or  in  whom  the  oneness  of  God  and  man  was  clearly  exhib- 
ited, and  from  Him  a  new  process  of  development  commenced  as 
perfectly  natural  as  the  process  before  his  advent,  and  the  re- 
demption of  man  consists  in  the  communication  of  the  sinlessness 
and  blessedness  of  Christ  to  the  individual.  This  is  expressed 
commonly  by  saying  that  the  life  of  Christ,  —  not  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  derived  from  Him  ;  not  his  divine  nature  ;  not  his 
humanity  ;  but  his  divine-human  life,  —  is  commimicated  to  the 
Church  and  to  all  its  members.  In  other  words,  as  Christ  is  God 
in  human  form,  so  is  every  believer.  The  incarnation  goes  for- 
ward in  the  Church.  In  the  language  of  the  older  mystics,  what 
is  communicated  is  "  the  essential  righteousness  of  God,"  or 
"  the  essence  of  God,"  the  life  of  God,  or  God  Himself. 

According  to  this  view  the  objective  work  of  Christ,  what  He 
did  and  suffered  is  of  no  avail  for  us  ;  it  is  not  that  which  makes 
us  righteous,  or  by  which  we  are  redeemed.  Redemption  and 
reconciliation  are  a,  purely  subjective  process ;  something  which 
takes  place  in  the  sinner's  own  soul,  and  not  something  which 
was  done  for  him.  It  matters  little  whether  there  was  a  histor- 
ical Christ  or  not ;  or,  at  least,  whether  the  facts  recorded  of 
Him  be  true  or  untrue  ;  whether  the  Gospels  are  liistorical  or 
mythical. 

According  to  another  view,  the  work  of  Christ  was  in  no  sense 
a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  ;  neither  his  obedience  nor  his  sufr 
fering  svas  designed  to  be  set  over  to  his  people  with  its  merit, 
as  the  ground  of  their  justification.  The  Word  became  flesh. 
He  assumed  our  fallen  humanity  into  personal  union  with  Him- 
self. This  necessitated  conflict  and  suffering  as  the  only  way  in 
which  the  new  life  could  triumph  over  the  law  of  sin  and  death 
which  belonged  to  our  fallen  humanity.  This  was  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  the  triumph  of  health  over  disease.  This  was 
the  victory  of  Clirist  over  sin  and  hell.  Thus  He  becomes  the 
author  of  salvation  to  men.  Humanity  in  Christ  suffered  and 
died,  and  rose  again.  That  humanity  is  our  nature.  It  is  that 
which  constitutes  us  what  we  are.  By  union  with  the  Church, 
which  is  the  body  of  Christ  animated  by  his  theanthropic  nature 
or  life,  we  become  one  with  Him.  What  is  communicated  to 
us  is  not  his  merit,  nor  his  Spirit,  but  his  essence,  his  substance, 
his  life.  There  is  no  dualism  between  the  soul  and  body.  They 
are  one  life.     The  soul  externalizes  itself  in  the  body,  they  are 


i 


§11.]  MODERN   THEORIES.  201 

one.  Su  tliere  is  no  dualism  in  Christ ;  not  a  divine  and  human 
substance  ;  not  a  divine  and  human  hfe  ;  but  one  life  wliich  is 
simply  and  purely  human  and  yet  divine  ;  for  God  and  man  are 
one ;  and  humanity  reaches  its  completion  only  when  thus  iden- 
tified with  the  divine.  This  divine-human  life  passes  over  from 
Christ  to  the  Church  ;  and  this  takes  place  in  the  way  of  history, 
growth,  and  development.  Partaking  thus  of  the  life  of  Christ, 
we  partake  of  its  righteousness,  its  holiness,  and  its  glory.  Thus 
redemption  is  purely  subjective.  It  is  wrought  in  us,  although 
the  source  is  without  us.  As  we  partake  of  Adam's  sin  and 
condemnation,  because  we  partake  of  his  nature  ;  so  we  j^artake 
of  Christ's  righteousness  and  holiness  because  we  partake  of 
his  divine-human  life,  or  of  humanity  as  healed  and  exalted  in 
Him.i 

JEhrard  of  Erlangen. 

There  is  an  important  class  of  modern  theological  writers, 
of  whom  Dr.  J.  H.  A.  Ebrard  of  Erlangen  may  be  taken  as  a 
representative,  who  consider  themselves  faithful  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformation,  while  developing  them  into  new  forms.  As 
Ebrard  represents  this  class  of  writers  among  the  Reformed,  so 
Delitzsch  does  the  same  for  the  Lutheran  theologians.  These 
writers  are  abundantly  orthodox  in  their  exposition  of  the  nature 
of  Christ's  work.  This  is  especially  true  of  Delitzsch  in  his  ad- 
mirable treatise  on  "  The  Vicarious  Satisfaction  of  Christ."  ^  As 
these  writers  identify  regeneration  and  justification,  their  views 
may  be  found  briefly  stated  in  the  chapter  on  regeneration. 

Clirist,  it  is  admitted,  made  expiation  for  sin  and  satisfied  the 
justice  of  God  as  our  substitute  by  liis  vicarious  obedience  and 
sufferings.  This  righteousness,  however,  becomes  ours  not  by 
being  received  by  faith  and  imputed  to  us  by  the  just  judgment 
of  God,  but  by  regeneration,  whereby  we  become  partakers  of 
the  life,  substance,  or  essence,  however  it  may  be  designated,  of 
Christ.  On  this  subject  Ebrard  says :  "  Regeneration  is  the 
substantial  objective  ground  both  of  the  transient  act  of  justifi- 
cation, and  of  the  progressive  work  of  sanctification ;  whereas 
conversion  (repentance  and  faith)  is  the  subjective  condition  of 
both.  And  justification  as  the  act  of  the  Father,  is  a  forensic 
judicial  act ;  as  the  act  of  Christ,  it  is  identical  with  regenera- 

1  See  Mystical  Presence,  by  John  W.  Nevin,  D.  D. ;  Morell's  Philosophy  of  Relic/ion,  and 
Princeton  Review,  April,  1848. 

2  Ueber  den  festen  Schrift(jrund  der  Kirchenlehre  von  der  stellvertretenden  Oenug- 
thuung,  printed  as  a  second  Appendix  to  his  elaborate  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 


202  PART  ni.   ch.  xvn. -justification. 

tion,  i.  e.,  with  the  real  implantation  of  Christ  in  us  and  of  us 
in  Christ."  Both  propositions,  therefore,  he  says,  are  equally 
true,  namely,  "  Christ  justifies  us  ;  and  faith  justifies  us."  Id 
explaining  this,  he  says :  "  Aikoio;  before  God  is  one  who  does  not 
merit  punishment ;  who  is  free  from  guilt  in  the  sight  of  God's 
eternal  law,  either  because  he  is  absolutely  sinless,  or  holy, 
never  having  contracted  guilt,  as  in  the  case  of  Christ ;  or  be- 
cause his  guilt  has  been  expiated,  and  his  lack  of  the  righteous- 
ness demanded  by  the  law  is  covered.  Ai/caow  means  either  to 
acknowledge  as  SiKaios  one  who  is  StVatos ;  or  to  make  St'^aios  one 
who  is  not  St/caio?."  The  latter  is  its  sense  when  used  in  refer- 
ence to  sinners.  In  their  case,  "  The  act  of  St/cauoo-ts  consists, 
.  (1.)  In  the  gift  of  the  expiation  (Siihne)  made  by  Christ  with- 
out the  sinner's  cooperation  ;  and  (2.)  In  the  gift  of  the  absolute 
righteousness  of  Christ,  in  such  sense  that  God  does  not  regard 
the  sinner  as  he  is  by  nature,  and  by  self-development,  but  as  he 
is  as  implanted  in  Christ."  There  is,  therefore,  a  clear  distinction 
to  be  made  between  the  appropriation  of  righteousness,  and  the 
procuring  of  righteousness.  "Christ  has.  procured  and  merited 
(erworben  hat)  righteousness  by  his  historical  life  and  suffer- 
ings ;  it  is  applied  by  Christ's  being  born  in  us."  "  The  Scrip- 
tures," he  says,  "  do  not  speak  of  Christ's  righteousness  being 
imputed  to  us.  They  teach  that  it  comes  upon  us  (Rom.  v.  18), 
and  becomes  our  ovm.  It  is  our  own,  however,  because  the  per- 
son of  Christ  becomes  ours  in  the  strictest  possible  (allerrealsten, 
the  most  literal)  sense  of  the  terms."  What  Ebrard  contends 
for  is  (die  substantielle  Lebenseinheit  mit  der  Person  Christi), 
the  substantial  oneness  of  life  with  Christ ;  /^  or,  as  he  often  else- 
where expresses  it,  "  the  mysterious,  mystical  communication  of 
the  substance  of  Christ  to  the  central  substance  of  man."  ^  Dr. 
Alexander  Schweizer  of  ZLirich,^  although  differing  much  in 
other  points  from  Ebrard,  agrees  Avith  him  in  this.  The  essen- 
tial element  in  the  work  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  is  the  founding  and 
upholding  a  community  animated  or  pervaded  by  his  thean- 
thropic  life  (gottmenschlichen  Lebenspotenz).  Dr.  Nevin*  says, 
"  Our  nature  reaches  after  a  true  and  real  union  with  the  nature 
of  God,  as  the  necessar^^  complement  and  consummation  of  its 
own  life.  The  idea  which  it  embodies  can  never  be  fully  actual- 
ized, under  any  other  form.     The  incarnation  is  the  proper  com- 

1  ChristUcke  Dogmatik,  ii.  i.  2,  §  443;  Kcinigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  pp.  311,  312,  314. 

2  /W/?.  p.  310. 

8  Glnubensh'hre,  Zurich,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  385. 

4  Mystical  Presence,  Philadelphia,  1846,  pp.  200,  201. 


§11.]  MODERN   THEORIES.  203 

pletion  of  humanity.  Christ  is  the  true  ideal  man."  "  The 
incarnation  was  no  mere  theophany  ;  no  transient  wonder  ;  no 

ilhision  exhibited  to  the  senses The  Word  became  flesh  ; 

not  a  single  man  only,  as  one  among  many  ;  but  '  flesh,'  or  hu- 
manity in  its  universal  conception.  How  else  could  He  be  the 
principle  of  a  general  life,  the  origin  of  a  new  order  of  existence 
for  the  human  world  as  such  ?  How  else  could  the  value  of  his 
mediatorial  work  be  made  over  to  us  in  a  real  way,  by  a  true 
imputation,  and  not  a  legal  fiction  only?  "  ^  "  Christianity  is  a 
life,  not  only  as  revealed  at  first  in  Christ,  but  as  continued  also 
in  the  Church.  It  flows  over  from  Clirist  to  his  people,  always 
in  this  form.  They  do  not  simply  bear  his  name  and  acknowl- 
edge his  doctrine.  They  are  so  united  to  Him  as  to  have  part 
in  the  substance  of  his  life  itself."  ^  He  had  before  said,^  that 
"  by  the  hypostatical  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ,  our  humanity  as  fallen  in  Adam  was  exalted  again 
to  a  new  and  imperishable  divine  life."  "  The  object  of  the 
incarnation  was  to  couple  the  human  nature  in  real  union  with 
the  Logos,  as  a  permanent  source  of  life."  Again,^  "  the  new 
life  of  which  Christ  is  the  source  and  organic  principle,  is  in  all 
respects  a  true  human  life  ;  .  .  .  .  not  a  new  humanity,  wholly 
dissevered  from  that  of  Adam  ;  but  the  hmnanity  of  Adam  itself, 
only  raised  to  a  higher  character,  and  filled  ^vith  new  meaning 

and  power,  by  its  union  with  the  divine  nature Christ's 

life,  as  now  described,  rests  not  in  his  separate  person,  but  passes 
over  to  his  people  ;  thus  constituting  the  Church,  which  is  his 
body,  the  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all."  "  Christ  com- 
municates his  own  life  substantially  to  the  soul  on  which  He  acts, 
causing  it  to  grow  into  his  very  nature.  This  is  the  mystical 
union  ;  the  basis  of  our  whole  salvation  ;  the  only  medium  by 
wiiich  it  is  possible  for  us  to  have  an  interest  in  the  grace  of 
Christ  under  any  other  view."  ^  With  his  substance,  his  life, 
his  divine-human  nature  thus  communicated  to  the  soul  come 
his  merit,  his  holiness,  his  power,  his  glory.  These  are  predi- 
cates of  the  nature  which  becomes  ours,  constituting  our  personal 
life  and  character.  Even  the  resurrection  is  to  be  effected,  not 
by  the  power  of  Christ  operating  "  ab  extra,"  as  when  He  raised 
Lazarus  from  the  dead,  but  by  "  a  new  divine  element,  intro- 
duced into  our  nature  by  the  incarnation."  ^ 

1  Mystical  Presence,  Philadelphia,  1846,  pp.  210,  211.  2  Tbid.  p.  218. 

«  Ibid.  p.  165.  4  Ihid.  p.  167.  6  lUd.  p.  168.  «  Ihid.  p    226. 


204  PART  m.   Ch.  xyil  — justification. 

Objections  to  these  Theories. 

In  opposition  to  these  views  it  may  be  said  very  briefly  in  the 
way  of  recapitulation  of  what  has  been  more  fully  said  in  the 
chapters  above  referred  to,  — 

1.  That  this  is  a  philosophy.  The  scheme  has  its  entire  basis 
in  a  philosophical  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  man  and  his  relation 
to  God.  This  is  undeniable,  and  is  hardly  denied.  Dr.  Nevin 
states  three  "  scientific  principles,"  ignorance  of  which  led  the 
Reformers  to  a  misapprehension  and  imperfect  representation  of 
Christianity,  and  the  recognition  of  Avhich  and  of  their  applica- 
tion to  theology,  enables  the  modem  theologian  to  set  forth  the 
nature  and  plan  of  salvation  in  a  much  more  satisfactory  light. 
Those  principles  are,  (1.)  The  true  import  of  organic  law.  The 
Reformers  did  not  make  a  clear  distinction,  he  says,  "  between 
the  idea  of  the  organic  law  which  constitutes  the  proper  iden- 
tity of  a  human  body,  and  the  material  volume  it  is  found  to 
embrace  as  exhibited  to  the  senses."  There  may  be,  therefore, 
a  real  communication  of  Christ  and  even  of  his  body  to  his  peo- 
ple without  a  communication  of  his  flesh.  (2.)  The  absolute 
unity  involved  in  personality.  In  the  case  of  Chi-ist,  body,  soul, 
and  divinity  are  united  in  "  a  single  indivisible  life,"  so  that 
where  the  one  is,  all  are.  To  communicate  Christ  to  the  soul  is 
therefore  to  communicate  that  indivisible  life,  including  in  it  as 
an  organizing,  organic  principle,  body,  soul,  and  divinity.  (3.) 
The  distinction  between  individual  and  generic  life.  "  In  every 
sphere  of  life,"  it  is  said,  "  the  individual  and  the  general  are 
found  closely  united  in  the  same  subject."  The  acorn,  in  one 
view,  is  only  a  single  existence  ;  but  it  includes  the  force  of  a  life 
capable  of  reaching  far  beyond  itself.  The  life  of  a  forest  of  oaks 
is  only  the  expansion  of  the  life  of  the  original  acorn,  "  and  the 
whole  general  existence  thus  produced  is  bound  together,  in- 
wardly and  organically,  by  as  true  and  close  a  unity  as  that 
which  holds  in  any  of  the  single  existences  embraced  in  it,  sepa- 
rately considered."  Thus  also  Adam,  in  one  view,  was  a  man ; 
in  another,  he  Avas  the  man.  A  whole  world  of  separate  person- 
alities lay  involved  in  his  life,  as  a  generic  principle  or  root. 
"  Adam  lives  in  his  posterity  as  truly  as  he  has  ever  hved  in  his 
own  person."  In  like  manner,  although  in  a  higher  form,  the 
life  of  Christ  is  to  be  viewed  under  the  same  twofold  aspect. 
In  one  view  the  Saviour  was  a  man  ;  but  in  another,  He  was  the 
man,  "  the  Son  of  man,  in  whose  person  stood  revealed  the  true 


I 


§  11.]  MODERN   THEORIES.  205 

idea  of  liumanlty,  under  its  ultimate  and  most  comprehensive 
form.  Without  any  loss  or  change  of  character  in  the  first  view, 
his  life  is  carried  over  in  this  last  view  continually  into  the  per- 
sons of  his  people.  He  hves  in  Himself,  and  yet  lives  in  them 
really  and  truly  at  the  same  time."  As  we  participate  in 
Adam's  whole  nature,  soul  and  body,  so  the  people  of  Christ  par- 
ticipate in  his  whole  nature,  body,  soul,  and  divinity.  These  are 
one  indivisible  life  ;  and  that  one  theantliropic  life  is  communi- 
cated to  believers  and  constitutes  them  Christians.  In  this  is  in- 
cluded all  their  participation  in  the  righteousness,  merit,  and  glory 
of  their  Redeemer.^ 

Behmd  and  under  these  three  scientific  principles  there  ia 
another  without  which  the  three  mentioned  amount  to  nothing  ; 
namely,  the  unity  of  God  and  man.  Man  in  his  highest  form ; 
the  ideal  or  perfect  man  ;  He  in  whom  the  idea  of  humanity  i3 
fully  realized,  is  God.  What  does  it  amount  to,  if  we  admit  that 
"  organic  law  "  constitutes  identity,  as  in  the  case  of  man  ;  or  that 
personality  includes  the  idea  of  "  one  indivisible  life  ;  "  that  in 
man  there  is  not  one  life  of  the  body  and  another  of  the  soul,  that 
these  are  only  different  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  life  ; 
that  the  soul  can  no  more  be  without  the  body  than  the  body 
without  the  soul ;  and  that  in  Christ  there  is  not  one  hfe  of  the 
divinity  and  another  of  his  humanity  ?  Suppose  we  deny  what 
the  Church  in  all  ages  has  affirmed,  that  there  are  two  ivepyetai  in 
Christ,  what  does  this  amount  to  ?  Or  what  does  it  avail  to 
admit  the  realistic  doctrine  of  a  generic  life  ;  if  that  life  (one 
and  indivisible)  be  merely  human,  Adamic  ?  How  can  it  redeem 
us  ?  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  that  the  human  and  the  divine 
are  one,  that  this  unity,  fully  realized  in  Christ,  constitutes  the 
"  one  indivisible  life  "  which  passes  over  to  us  ;  that  it 'has  any 
redeeming  power  ;  and  that  it  exalts  man  from  his  degradation, 
and  brings  him  back  to  conscious  as  well  as  real  unity  with  God. 

This  theory  as  presented  by  Schleiermacher,  its  author  in  mod- 
ern times,  was  undeniably  pantheistic ;  as  held  by  many  of  his 
disciples,  it  is,  in  their  apprehension,  theistic.  In  either  form  the 
leading  idea  of  the  identity  of  God  and  man  is  retained.^  Christ 
is  the  ideal  man.  In  Him  the  idea  of  humanity  is  fully  realized  ; 
and  therefore  He  is  God.  The  manifestation  of  God  in  the  form 
of  man,  belongs  to  the  divine  nature.     The  incarnation  is  entirely 

1  See  Mystical  Presence,  section  first  of  the  Scientific  Statement. 

2  See  this  cleirly  presented  in  Dr.  UHmann's  paper  on  "The  Distinctive  Character  of 
Christianity,"  in  the  Studien  und  Kritihen  for  January,  1845,  translated  by  Dr.  Nevia  and 
prefixed  as  a  Preliminary  Essay  to  his  work  oa  The  Mystical  Presence. 


206  PART  III.     Ch.   XVIL— justification. 

independent  of  the  fall  of  man  ;  or,  admitting  that  the  failure  of 
the  race  to  reach  its  true  ideal  in  the  first  instance  was  the  oc- 
casion of  a  new,  special,  and  supernatural  intervention,  yet  the 
whole  end  of  that  intervention  was  to  realize  the  original  idea  of 
humanity  as  God  made  flesh. 

The  watchword  of  this  whole  system  is,  in  the  language  of  Dr, 
Ullmann,  "  The  life  of  Christ  is  Christianity ;  "  i.  e.,  the  one 
indivisible  life  of  Christ ;  the  life  of  God  in  the  form  of  humanity. 
And  that  hfe  as  communicated  to  men  brings  them  to  this  real, 
substantial  life  union  vnth.  God.  "  What,"  asks  Dr.  Ullmann, 
"  is  that  in  the  personality  of  Christ  by  which  He  is  constituted 
a  perfect  Saviour  in  the  way  of  atonement  and  redemption  ?  We 
reply  generally,  his  own  substantial  nature,  at  once  human  and 
divine ;  his  life  filled  with  all  the  attributes  of  God,  and  repre- 
senting at  the  same  time  the  highest  conception  of  nature  and 
man  ;  complete  and  self-sufficient  in  its  own  fulness,  and  yet  by 
this  fulness  itself  the  free  principle  of  a  new  corresponding  life- 
process,  in  the  way  of  self-communication,  for  the  human  world. 
This  fife  itself,  however,  has  again  its  central  heart,  to  which  es- 
pecially we  must  look  for  the  pecuhar  being  of  Christ.  Here  the 
whole  theology  of  the  present  time,  in  all  its  different  tendencies, 
may  be  said  to  have  but  one  voice.  That  which  constitutes  the 
special  being  of  Christ,  makes  Him  to  be  what  He  is  and  gives 
Him  thus  his  highest  significance  for  the  world,  is  the  absolute 
unity  of  the  di\dne  and  human  in  his  nature.  Deity  and  man- 
hood in  Him  come  fully  together  and  are  made  one.  This  is  the 
last  ground  of  Christianity.  Here  above  all  we  are  to  look  for  its 
distinctive  character."  He  goes  on  to  show  that  on  this  point  all 
are  agreed.  God  and  man  are  one.  The  difference  is  between 
the  pantheistic  and  the  Christian  view  which  acknowledges  a 
personal  God  and  a  positive  revelation.  "  For  the  whole  ap- 
prehension of  Christianity,  we  may  say,  not  only  that  much,  but 
that  all  depends  on  the  question,  which  of  these  views  shall  be 
adopted  ;  whether  this  central  fact  shall  be  regarded  as  a  general 
'  unity  of  the  divine  and  human  '  realizing  itself  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  •  the  race  as  such,  or  be  conceived  of  as  a  concrete  '  union 
of  God  and  man,'  that  actualizes  itself  from  a  definite  point  and 
only  under  certain  moral  conditions."  ^  That  is,  whether  God  is 
incarnate  in  the  race  or  in  the  Church.  According  to  the  latter 
view,  the  life  of  Christ,  his  human  life,  "  filled  with  all  the  attri- 
butes of  God,"  passes  over  to  his  people,  by  a  process  of  natural 

1  See  Nevin's  Mystical  Presence,  pp.  27,  28,  29. 


§11.]  MODERN   THEORIES.  207 

de\  elopment.  As  we  are  fallen  men  by  partaking  of  the  nature 
or  generic  life  of  Adam,  we  are  God-men,  and  therefore  redeemed 
by  partaking  of  the  divine  human  nature  or  generic  life  of  Christ. 

That  the  oneness  of  God  and  man  is  the  ultimate  principle  on 
which  this  eVepov  evttyye'Atov  rests,  is  obvious  not  only  from  the  gen- 
eral character  of  the  philosophy  from  which  it  is  derived,  but  also 
from  the  fact  that  everything  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  hfe  of 
Christ  becoming  the  hfe  of  his  people,"  not  by  his  controlling  their 
life  by  his  Spirit  dwelling  in  them,  but  by  a  substantial  union 
and  identification  of  their  life  with  his,  of  them  with  Him.  We 
can  measurably  understand  what  is  meant  by  life,  by  organic  life, 
by  a  life  principle  or  force  which  develops  itself,  and  communi- 
cates and  transmits  itself  in  a  given  form.  We  know  what  is 
meant  when  it  is  said  that  the  life  of  the  acorn  is  developed  into 
an  oak,  and  communicated  to  other  acorns,  and  thus  to  other  oaks 
in  endless  succession  and  boundless  multiplication.  But  here  the 
essential  idea  is  the  unity  and  sameness  of  the  hfe  transmitted. 
You  caimot  combine  the  "  organic  law,"  or  life,  of  the  apple 
with  that  of  the  acorn,  so  that  the  life  transmitted  should  be  "  an 
acorn-apple-life."  Much  less  can  you  combine  the  organic  life 
principle  of  an  animal  with  that  of  the  acorn,  so  as  to  produce  an 
"  acorn-bovine,"  or,  "  an  acorn-equine  life."  Least  of  all  can  you 
combine  the  intellectual  life  of  man  with  that  of  the  oak,  so  as  to 
have  a  "  humau-oak-life."  Therefore  if  the  life  of  God  and  the  life 
of  man  be  so  combined  as  to  constitute  one  life  and  that  a  divine- 
human  life,  then  God  and  man  must  be  one  ;  i.  e.,  one  substance, 
one  life  differently  manifested.  Those  who  press  the  modern  doc- 
trine of  the  correlation  of  forces  to  the  extreme  of  making  thought 
and  gravity  identical,  may  accept  these  conclusions.  With  them 
the  universe  and  all  it  contains,  all  its  physical,  mental,  aesthetic, 
moral,  and  religious  phenomena  are  to  be  referred  to  one  and  the 
same  force  variously  modified.  The  same  force  modified  by  the 
brain  produces  all  the  phenomena  of  mind  ;  as  modified  by  animal 
tissues,  all  the  phenomena  of  animal  life  ;  and  as  modified  by  veg- 
etable organisms  all  the  phenomena  of  vegetable  life,  —  a  theory 
which  has  been  annihilated  as  by  a  bolt  from  heaven  by  the  sin- 
gle question  :  Where  is  the  brain  which  elaborated  the  mind, 
which  framed  the  universe  ? 

It  may  indeed  be  said,  and  is  said  by  modern  theologians, 
that  God  became  man,  and  therefore  man  may  become  God. 
God  and  man,  they  say,  were  so  united  as  to  become  one  nature 
or  life  in  the  person  of  Christ.     But  this  is  contrary  to  Scripture 


208  PAKT  m.   Ch.  xvn.— justification. 

and  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal.  There  is  not  a  histor- 
ical Church  on  earth,  and  never  has  been,  whose  creed  does  not 
teach  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  two  distinct  natures  or  sub- 
stances are  united  ;  that  He  was  born,  not  merely  "  per,"  but  "  ex 
matre  sua  Maria,"  of  her  substance ;  that  He  is  as  man  consub- 
stantial  Avith  men,  as  God  consubstantial  mth  the  Father  ;  or  as 
the  Apostle  expresses  it,  Kara  aa.pKa  He  is  the  son  of  David,  Kara. 
TTieD/ja  the  Son  of  God.  Humanity  and  divinity  in  Him  are  no 
more  identified  or  reduced  to  one  life,  than  soul  and  body  in  man 
are  identified  or  reduced  to  one  life. 

This  whole  modern  theory  of  the  Gospel  rests,  therefore,  ulti- 
mately on  the  idea  of  the  identity  of  God  and  man ;  that  man  is 
a  "  modus  existendi  "  of  God. 

The  grand  objection  to  this  scheme  is  that  it  is  a  philosophy. 
It  is  a  product  of  the  human  mind.  It  is  the  wisdom  of  the 
world.  It  is  the  recent  philosophy  of  the  speculative  school  of 
Germany,  clothed  in  Biblical  forms  and  phrases.  The  reason 
why  the  Reformers  did  not  present  the  plan  of  salvation  in  this 
form,  is  declared  to  be  that  they  were  ignorant  of  modern  philos- 
ophy. It  is  because  Hegel  thought  that  the  Gospel  admitted  of 
being  cast  into  the  mould  of  his  philosophy  that  he  pronomiced 
Christianity  to  be  the  absolute  religion.  All,  therefore,  that  the 
Bible  says  of  the  "  wisdom  of  the  wise,"  "  of  the  wisdom  of  men," 
of  "  the  Avisdom  of  the  world,"  of  "  philosophy  as  a  vam  deceit," 
applies,  and  was  intended  to  apply  to  this  scheme  and  to  all  of 
like  nature.  "  To  the  poor  the  gospel  is  preached."  The  Gos- 
pel is  designed  for  babes  and  sucklings.  He  that  rmis  may  read 
and  understand  it.  This  system  not  one  man  in  ten  thousand 
can  understand. 

These  Theories   Unscriptural. 

2.  The  second  great  objection  to  this  scheme  is  that  it  is  un- 
scriptural. The  Bible  tells  us  that  Christ  saves  us  as  a  priest 
This  a  child  can  understand.  He  knows  that  a  priest  takes  the 
place  of  those  for  whom  he  acts  ;  that  he  approaches  God  in  their 
behalf  ;  that  he  makes  expiation  for  siii ;  that  he  does  what 
satisfies  the  demands  of  God's  justice  against  the  sinner,  so  that 
He  can  be  just  and  yet  justify  the  ungodly.  He  knows  that  a 
priest  saves,  not  by  what  he  does  in  us,  not  by  imparting  his  life 
to  us,  Tjut  by  what  he  does  for  us  ;  by  an  objective,  and  not  by  a 
subjective  work.  What  there  is  of  an  inward  work,  and  that  is 
much  and  absolutely  necessary,  is  not  the  work  of  a  priest,  mider 


i 


§  11.]  MODERN   THEORIES.  209 

whicli  aspect  the  work  of  Christ  is  so  prominently  presented  in 
the  Scriptures.  Again,  Christ  saves  us  as  a  sacrifice  ;  but  a  sacri- 
fice is  a  substitute  ;  it  bears  the  sins  of  the  offender  ;  dies  in  his 
stead,  and  by  its  vicarious  death  delivers  the  offerer  from  the 
penalty  which  he  had  incurred.  A  sacrifice  is  not  a  symbol  of  an 
inward  conflict  between  good  and  evil ;  its  proximate  design  is 
not  to  effect  a  subjective  change  in  the  sinner  ;  it  does  not  produce 
or  communicate  a  new  principle  of  life,  much  less  its  own  generic 
life  to  the  offerer  by  which  his  real  redemption  is  effected. 

In  like  manner  the  Bible  teaches  that  Christ  gave  Himself  as  a 
ransom  for  many.  But  a  ransom  is  a  price  paid.  Those  deUvered 
by  it  are  bought.  They  are  delivered  by  purchase.  A  ransom 
meets  and  satisfies  the  claims  of  a  third  party.  This  is  its  es- 
sential idea,  and  cannot  be  omitted  without  rejecting  the  very 
truth,  which  the  Scriptures,  in  the  use  of  the  term,  design  to 
teach.  This  again  is  an  objective  work.  It  is  something  which 
the  person  redeemed  neither  does,  nor  inwardly  experiences ;  but 
which  is  done  for  him  and  without  him  and  not  in  him. 

Moreover,  the  whole  idea  of  redemption,  the  primary  truth 
taught  in  setting  forth  Christ  as  a  Redeemer,  is  that  He  delivers 
his  people  not  by  power,  not  by  instruction,  not  by  moral  influ- 
ence, not  by  any  subjective  change  wrought  in  them,  and  not  by 
any  new  form  of  life  imparted  to  them,  but  by  purchase.  This 
is  the  signification  and  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  words 
aTToXwrptuo-ts,  XvTpovu,  ayopd^€Lv,  e^ayopa^etv,  are  never  uscd  in  Scrip- 
ture in  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ  in  any  other  sense  than 
that  of  deliverance  by  purchase  or  payment  of  a  ransom ;  and 
to  substitute  any  other  mode  of  deliverance,  is  to  put  man's 
thoughts  in  the  place  of  God's  truth  ;  it  is  to  substitute  the  hu- 
man for  the  divine  ;  the  worthless  for  the  priceless. 

Moreover,  Christ  is  constantly  represented  as  a  rock,  a  refuge, 
a  hiding  place.  The  duty  requu-ed  of  sinners  is  trust ;  relying 
on  Him  and  his  work,  as  something  out  of  themselves  on  which  to 
place  their  hope  toward  God. 

These    Theories  lead  Men  to  trust  to   themselves. 

3.  This  introduces  the  third  great  objection  to  this  scheme. 
It  makes  redemption  subjective.  It  is  what  we  are ;  what  we  be- 
come ;  it  is  the  Christ  within  us  ;  the  new  heart,  the  new  nature, 
the  new  Hfe,  the  divine-human  hfe  of  Christ,  or  whatever  else  it 
may  be  called,  which  is  at  once  the  ground  of  our  justification 
and  the  source  of  sanctification.     This  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 

VOL.   III.  14 


210  PAKT  III.     Ch.  XVIL  —  justification. 

the  Bible,  and  with  the  experience  of  the  people  of  God  in  all 
ages  and  under  all  dispensations.  In  no  instance  are  behevers 
represented  as  trusting  to  what  is  within  them,  but  to  what  m 
Mdthout  them.  The  Protestant  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  makes 
full  provision  for  an  inward  work  of  deliverance  from  the  power 
of  sin,  as  well  as  for  redemption  from  the  curse  of  the  law ;  for 
sanctification  as  well  as  for  justification.  But  it  does  not  con- 
found the  two,  neither  does  it  refer  either  or  both  to  the  new  prin- 
ciple of  hfe,  the  new  seed  or  leaven  implanted  or  inserted  which 
works  as  "  an  organic  law,"  and  by  a  regular  process  of  develop- 
ment, as  natural  as  the  operation  of  any  other  law.  The  whole 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  ignored  in  this  new  theory  of  redemption. 
What  in  the  Bible  is  referred  to  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  by  the 
theologians  of  this  class,  referred  to  the  "  divine-human  "  nature 
of  Christ.  The  latter,  and  not  the  former,  is  the  proximate  and 
efficient  source  of  holiness  of  heart  and  Hfe.  "  Christ,"  says  Dr. 
Nevin,  "  does  dwell  in  us,  by  his  Spirit ;  but  only  as  his  Spirit 
constitutes  the  very  form  and  power  of  his  own  presence  as  the 
incarnate  and  everlasting  Word."  ^  That  is,  the  Spirit  is  the 
power  of  the  incarnate  Word,  i.  e.,  of  the  divine-human  life  of 
Christ.  "  The  life,"  he  adds,  "  thus  ^vl'ought  in  our  souls  by  his 
agency,  is  not  a  production  out  of  nothing,  but  the  very  life  of 
Jesus  Himself  organically  continued  in.  this  way  over  into  our 
persons."  "  It  is  with  the  mediatorial  life  of  Christ'  that  the 
Christian  salvation,  in  the  form  now  contemplated,  is  concerned. 
In  this  is  comprehended  the  entire  new  creation  revealed  by  the 
Gospel ;  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  all  the  benefits  He  has 
procured  for  his  people.  But  the  mediatorial  life,  by  the  com- 
munication of  which  only  all  this  grace  is  made  to  j)ass  over  to 
men,  is  one  and  undivided  ;  "  and  this  life,  as  he  goes  on  to  show, 
includes  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity.  To  the  same  effect,^  it  is 
said,  "  That  the  whole  spiritual  life  of  the  Christian,  including 
the  resurrection  of  his  body,  is  thus  organically  connected  with 
the  mediatorial  hfe  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  might  seem  to  be  too 
plainly  taught  in  the  New  Testament  to  admit  of  any  question  ; 
and  yet  we  find  many  slow  to  allow  the  mystery,  notwithstand- 
ing. A  very  common  view  appears  to  be,  that  the  whole  salva- 
tion of  the  Gospel  is  accomplished  in  a  more  or  less  outward  and 
mechanical  way,  by  supernatural  might  and  power,  rather  than 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  as  a  revelation  of  a  new  historical  life 
in  the  person  of  the  believer  Himself.     So  we  have  an  outward 

1  Mystical  Presence,  pp.  197,  198.  l  Ibid.  p.  228,  note. 


§11]  MODERN   THEORIES.  211 

imputation  of  righteousness  to  begin  with  ;  a  process  of  sanctifica- 
tion  carried  forward  by  the  help  of  proper  spiritual  inachinery 
brought  to  bear  on  the  soul,  including  perhaps,  as  its  basis,  the 
notion  of  an  abrupt  creation  '  de  novo,'  by  the  fiat  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  finally,  to  crown  all,  a  sudden  unprepared  refabrica- 
tion  of  the  body,  to  be  superadded  to  the  life  of  the  spirit  already 
complete  in  its  state  of  glory."  The  doctrines  of  justification  by 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  of  the  regenera- 
tion and  sanctification  of  the  soul  by  the  supernatural  power  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body  by  the  power  of  God 
at  the  last  day,  are  rejected  and  despised  ;  and  the  doctrine  sub- 
stituted for  them  is,  that  the  divine-human  life  of  Christ,  as  a  new 
organic  law,  develops  itseK  in  the  Church,  just  as  the  life  of  the 
acorn  develops  itseK  in  the  oak  and  in  the  forest,  by  a  natural, 
historical  process,  so  that  the  members  of  the  Church,  in  virtue  of 
their  participation  of  this  life,  are  justified  and  sanctified,  and 
their  bodies  (since  the  life  of  Christ  is  a  human  life  actuahzing 
itself  outwardly  in  a  body  as  well  as  inwardly  in  a  soul),  ulti- 
mately raised  from  the  dead,  are  fashioned  after  the  glorious 
body  of  Christ.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  is  as  much  a 
natural  process  as  the  development  of  a  seed  into  a  flower,  or  of 
a  grub  into  a  butterfly.  This  is  Dr.  Nevin's  own  illustration : 
"  The  birth  of  the  butterfly,  as  it  mounts  in  the  aii*  on  wings  of 
light,  is  comparatively  sudden,  too  ;  but  this  is  the  revelation  only 
of  a  life  which  had  been  gradually  formed  for  this  efilorescence 
before,  under  cover  of  the  vile,  unsightly  larve."  "  The  new 
creation,"  he  says,  "  is  indeed  supernatural ;  but  as  such  it  is 
strictly  conformable  to  the  general  order  and  constitution  of  life. 
It  is  a  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus,  not  by  Him  in  the  way  of 
mere  outward  power.  The  subjects  of  it  are  saved,  only  by  being 
brought  within  the  sphere  of  his  life,  as  a  regular,  historical, 
divine-human  process,  in  the  Church.  The  new  nature  implanted 
in  them  at  their  regeneration,  is  not  a  higher  order  of  existence 
framed  for  them  at  the  moment  out  of  nothing  by  the  fiat  of 
God,  but  truly  and  strictly  a  continuation  of  Christ's  life  over  in 
their  persons."  ^ 

This  is  the  modern  view  of  Christianity  introduced  by  Schleier- 
macher,  modified  more  or  less  by  his  disciples,  and  which  has 
passed  over  into  England  and  into  this  country.  Humanity  as 
revealed  in  Adam  as  a  generic  life  was  too  feeble.  Its  devel- 
opment failed  and  would  have  ever  failed  to  reach  the   ideal. 

1  Mystical  Presence,  pp.  228,  229. 


212  PART  m.   ch.  xvn.  — justification. 

Therefore  God  interposed  and  interrupted  the  process  of  natural 
development  by  the  production  of  a  new  ideal  man  containing  in 
himself  a  generic  life,  a  seed,  a  principle,  an  organic  law,  which 
develops  itself  in  the  Church  by  a  historical  process,  just  as  the 
life  of  Adam  developed  itself  in  his  posterity.  We,  therefore,  are 
justified,  not  by  what  Christ  did,  but  by  his  life  in  us,  which  is  as 
truly  and  properly  our  life,  as  the  life  we  derived  from  Adam  is 
our  own  life.  We  must  stand  before  God  to  be  justified  or  con- 
demned, accepted  or  rejected,  on  the  ground  of  what  we  are. 
We  have  nothing  to  offer  but  our  own  subjective,  inherent  char- 
acter such  as  it  is.  The  man  is  to  be  pitied  who  dares  to  do  this. 
It  is  surely  better  to  agree  with  Paul,  who  renounced  his  own 
righteousness,  his  own  goodness,  everything  pertaining  to  him- 
self, everything  subjective,  and  trusted  only  and  confidently  to 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  received  by  faith. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

§  1.  Its  Nature. 

SANCTlFlCATioisr  in  tile  Westminster  Catechism  is  said  to  be 
"  the  work  of  God's  free  grace,  whereby  we  are  renewed  in  the  »/■  (^Ky^*a-^ 
whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,  and  are  enabled  more  and  " 
more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  righteousness." 

Agreeably"  to  .this  definition,  justification  differs  from  sanctifi- 
cation,  (1.)  In  that  the  former  is  a  transient  act,  the  latter  a 
progressive  work.  (2.)  Justification  is  a  forensic  act,  God  act- 
ing as  judge,  declaring  justice  satisfied  so  far  as  the  believing  sin- 
ner is  concerned,  whereas  sanctification  is  an_jeffect  due  to  the 
divine  efiiciency.  (3.)  Justification  changes,  or  declares  to  be 
changed,  the  relation  of  the  sinner  to  the  justice  of  God  ;  sanc- 
tification involves  a  change  of  character.  (4.)  The  former, 
therefore,  is  objective,  the  latter  subjective.  (5.)  The  former  is 
founded  on  what  Christ  has  done  for  us  ;~the  latter  is  the  effect 
of  what  He  does  in  us.  (6.)  Justification  is  complete  and  the 
same  in  all,  while  sanctification  is  progressive,  and  is  more  com- 
plete in  some  than  in  others. 

Sanctification  is  declared  to  be  a  work  of  God's  free  grace. 
Two  things  are  included  in  this.  First,  that  the  power  or  influ- 
ence by  which  it  is  carried  on  is  supernatural.  Secondly,  that 
granting  this  influence  to  any  sinner,  to  one  sinner  rather  than 
another,  and  to  one  more  than  to  another,  is  a  matter  of  favour. 
No  one  has  personally,  or  in  himself,  on  the  ground  of  anything 
he  has  done,  the  right  to  claim  this  divine  influence  as  a  just  rec- 
ompense, or  as  a  matter  of  justice. 

It  is  a  Supernatural   Work. 

I  In  representing,  in  accordance  with  Scripture,  sanctification  as 
a  supernatural  work,  or  as  a  work  of  grace,  the  Church  intends  to 
deny  the  Pelagian  or  Rationalistic  doctrine  which  confounds  it 
with  mere  moral  reformation.  It  not  unfrequently  happens  that 
men  who  have  been  immoral  in  their  lives,  change  their  whole 


21  i  PART  m.   Ch.  xvni.  —  sancttfication. 

course  of  living.  They  become  outwardly  correct  in  their  de- 
portment, temperate,  pure,  honest,  and  benevolent.  This  is  a 
great  and  praiseworthy  change.  It  is  in  a  high  degree  beneficial 
to  the  subject  of  it,  and  to  all  with  whom  he  is  connected.  It  may 
be  produced  by  different  causes,  by  the  force  of  conscience  and 
by  a  regard  for  the  authority  of  God  and  a  dread  of  his  disap- 
probation, or  by  a  regard  to  the  good  opinion  of  men,  or  by  the 
mere  force  of  an  enlightened  regard  to  one's  own  interest.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  proximate  cause  of  such  reformation,  it 
falls  very  far  short  of  sanctification.  The  two  things  differ  in 
nature  as  much  as  a  clean  heart  from  clean  clothes.  Such  exter- 
nal reformation  may  leave  a  man's  inward  character  in  the  sight 
of  God  unchanged.  He  may  remain  destitute  of  love  to  God,  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  of  all  holy  exercises  or  affections. 

Nor  is  sanctification  to  be  confounded  with  the  effects  of  moral 
culture  or  discipline.  It  is  very  possible,  as  experience  proves,  by 
careful  moral  training,  by  keeping  the  young  from  all  contami- 
nating influences,  and  by  bringing  them  under  the  forming  influ- 
ences of  right  principles  and  good  associates,  to  preserve  them 
from  much  of  the  evil  of  the  world,  and  to  render  them  like  the 
young  man  in  the  Gospel  whom  Jesus  loved.  Such  training  is 
not  to  be  undervalued.  It  is  enjoined  in  the  Word  of  God.  It 
cannot,  however,  change  the  nature.  It  cannot  impart  life.  A 
faultless  statue  fashioned  out  of  pure  marble  in  all  its  beauty,  is 
far  below  a  living  man. 

The  Avord  supernatural,  as  before  said,  is  used  in  two  senses. 
First,  for  that  which  is  above  nature,  and  by  nature  is  meant 
everything  out  of  God.  An  effect,  therefore,  is  said  to  be  super- 
natural, in  the  production  of  Avhich  nature  exercises  no  efficiency. 
But  secondly,  the  word  is  often  used  to  mark  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  providential  efficiency  of  God  operating  according  to 
fixed  laws,  and  the  voluntary  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Bible  makes  a  wide  distinction  between  the  providence  of  God 
and  the  operations  of  his  grace.  The  difference  between  the 
two  is,  in  some  repects,  analogous  to  that  between  the  efficiency 
of  a  law,  or  of  a  uniformly  acting  force,  and  the  agency  of  a  per- 
son. The  one  is  ordered,  the  other  is  exercised  from  time  to 
time,  the  Spirit  distributing  his  gifts  to  every  one  severally  as  He 
wills.  In  the  providential  agency  of  God,  the  effects  produced 
never  transcend  the  power  of  second  causes  as  upheld  and  guided 
by  Him  ;  whereas  the  effects  produced  by  the  Spirit  do  transcend 
the  power  of  second  causes.     The  effect  is  due  neither  to  the 


§1.]  ITS  NATURE.  215 

power  of  the  truth,  nor  to  that  of  the  rational  subject  in  -whom 
the  effect  is  produced.  It  is  due  to  the  power  of  God  over  and 
above  the  power  of  the  second  causes  concerned.  The  effects  of 
grace,  or  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  are  above  the  sphere  of  the  natural ; 
they  belong  to  the  supernatural.  The  mere  power  of  truth,  ar- 
gument, motive,  persuasion,  or  eloquence  cannot  produce  repent- 
ance, faith,  or  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  Nor  can  these  effects 
be  produced  by  the  power  of  the  will,  or  by  all  the  resources  of 
man,  however  protracted  or  skilful  in  their  application.  They 
are  the  gifts  of  God,  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  Paul  may  plant 
and  Apollos  water,  but  it  is  God  who  gives  the  increase. 

In  this  latter  sense  of  the  word  supernatural,  the  cooperation 
of  second  causes  is  ..not  excluded.  When  Christ  opened  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  no  second  cause  interposed  between  his  volition  and 
the  effect.  But  men  Avork  out  their  own  salvation,  while  it  is 
God  who  worketh  in  them  to  will  and  to  do,  according  to  his 
own  good  pleasure.  In  the  work  of  regeneration,  the  soul  is  pas- 
sive. It  cannot  cooperate  in  the  communication  of  spiritual  life. 
But  in  conversion,  repentance,  faith,  and  growth  in  grace,  all  its 
powers  are  called  into  exercise.  As,  however,  the  effects  pro- 
duced transcend  the  efficiency  of  our  fallen  nature,  and  are  due 
to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  sanctification  does  not  cease  to  be 
supernatural,  or  a  work  of  grace,  because  the  soul  is  active  and 
cooperating  in  the  process. 

Proof  of  its  Supernatural   Character. 

That  sanctification  is  a  supernatural  work  in  the  sense  above 
stated  is  proved,  — 

1.  From  the  fact  that  it  is  constantly  referred  to  God  as  its 
author.  It  is  referred  to  God  absolutely,  or  to  the  Father,  as  in 
1  Thessalonians  v.  23,  "  The  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you 
wholly."  Hebrews  xiii.  20,  21,  "  The  God  of  peace  that  brought 
again  from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus  ....  make  you  perfect  in 
every  good  work  to  do  his  will,  working  in  you  that  which  is 
well  pleasing  in  his  sight."  It  is  also  referred  to  the  Son,  as  in 
Titus  ii.  14,  He  "  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  .... 
purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of  good  works." 
Ephesians  v.  25,  He  "  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it, 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word,  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church, 
not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing;  but  that  it 
should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."     Predominantly  sanctifica- 


216  PART  in.   Ch.  xvin.  — sanctification. 

tion  IS  referred  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Ids  peculiar  work  in  the 
economy  of  redemption.  Hence  He  is  called  the  Spirit  of  all 
grace  ;  the  Spirit  of  joy,  of  j)eace,  of  love,  of  faith,  and  of  adoption. 
All  Christian  graces  are  set  forth  as  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  We 
are  said  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  by  Him  to  be  enlightened, 
taught,  led,  and  cleansed.  We  are  said  to  be  in  the  Spirit,  to 
live,  to  walk,  and  to  rejoice  in  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  dwells  in 
the  people  of  God,  and  is  the  abiding  source  of  all  the  actings  of 
that  spiritual  life  which  He  implants  in  the  soul.  The  Bible 
teaches  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  in  the  Holy  Trinity  subordi- 
nate to  the  Father,  as  to  their  mode  of  subsistence  and  operation, 
although  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  same  work  is  often  attribvited  to  the  Father, 
to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Spirit ;  and  as  the  Father  and  Son  operate 
through  the  Spirit,  the  effects  due  to  the  agency  of  God  are  re- 
ferred specially  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  reference  of  sanctification  to  God  proves  it  to  be  a  super- 
natural work,  because  the  insufficiency  of  second  causes  to  pro- 
duce the  effect  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  this  reference. 
It  is  because  men  cannot  cleanse  or  heal  themselves,  that  they 
are  declared  to  be  cleansed  and  healed  by  God.  It  is  because 
rites,  ceremonies,  sacraments,  truth,  and  moral  suasion,  cannot 
bring  the  soul  back  to  God,  that  it  is  said  to  be  transformed,  by 
the  renewing  of  the  mind,  through  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  into 
the  image  of  God.  We  are,  therefore,  declared  to  be  God's  work- 
manship, created  unto  good  works.  And  it  is  not  we  that  live, 
but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us. 

All  Holy  Exercises  referred  to  the  Spirit  as  their  Author. 

2.  This  reference  of  sanctification  to  God  as  its  author,  the 
more  decisively  proves  the  supernatural  character  of  the  work, 
because  the  reference  is  not  merely  general,  as  when  the  wind  and 
rain,  and  the  production  of  vegetable  and  animal  life,  are  referred 
to  his  universal  providential  agency.  The  reference  is  special. 
The  effect  is  one  which  the  Scriptures  recognize  as  not  within  the 
sphere  of  second  causes,  and  therefore  ascribe  to  God.  They 
recognize  the  free  agency  of  man  ;  they  acknowledge  and  treat 
him  as  a  moral  and  rational  being  ;  they  admit  the  adaptation  of 
^  ^  truth  to  convince  the  understanding,  and  of  the  motives  pre- 
sented to  determine  the  ^vill  and  to  control  the  affections,  and 
nevertheless  they  teach  that  these  secondary  causes  and  influences 
are  utterly  ineffectual  to  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  the 


§  1.]  ITS   NATURE.  217 

soul,  without  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit.  The  sacred  "writ- 
ers, therefore,  constantly  pray  for  this  divine  influence,  "  extrin- 
secus  accidens,"  to  attend  the  means  of  grace  and  to  render  them 
effectual,  as  well  for  sanctification  as  for  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion. Every  such  prayer,  every  thanksgiving  for  grace  imparted, 
every  recognition  of  the  Christian  virtues  as  fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
and  gifts  of  God,  are  so  many  recognitions  of  the  great  truth 
that  the  restoration  of  man  to  the  image  of  God  is  not  a  work 
of  nature,  either  originated  or  carried  on  by  the  efficiency  of  sec- 
ond causes,  but  is  truly  and  properly  supernatural,  as  due  to  the 
immediate  power  of  the  Spirit  producing  effects  for  which  second 
causes  are  inadequate. 

We  are  taught  to  pray  for  Repentance^  Faith,  and  other  G-races. 

3.  We  accordingly  find  the  Apostle  and  the  sacred  writers 
generally,  referring  not  only  regeneration,  the  communication 
of  spiritual  life  to  those  spiritually  dead,  but  the  continuance  of 
that  life  in  its  activity  and  growth,  not  merely  to  the  power  of 
God,  but  to  his  almighty  power.  Paul  prays  in  Ephesians  i.  19, 
that  his  readers  might  know  "  what  is  the  exceeding  greatness  of 
his  power  to  us-ward  who  believe  according  to  the  working  of 
his  mighty  power,  which  he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him 
from  the  dead."  The  same  almighty  power  which  was  exhibited 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  exercised  in  the  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion of  the  believer.  And  as  the  power  which  raised  Christ  from 
the  dead  was  exercised  in  his  ascension  and  glorification  ;  so  also 
the  same  power,  according  to  the  Apostle,  which  is  exerted  in  the 
spiritual  resurrection  of  the  believer,  is  exercised  in  carrying  on 
his  sanctification,  which  is  inward  and  real  glorification.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  same  Epistle  (iii.  7),  he  ascribes  all  the  grace  whereby 
he  was  fitted  for  the  apostleship,  "  to  the  effectual  working  of  his 
power."  And  further  on  (ver.  20),  to  encourage  the  people  of  God 
to  pray  for  spiritual  blessings,  he  reminds  them  of  his  omnipotence 
whereby  He  was  "  able  to  do  exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that 
we  ask  or  think,  according  to  the  power  that  worketh  in  us." 
It  is  almighty  power,  therefore,  and  not  the  impotence  of  second- 
ary influences,  which  works  in  the  believer  and  carries  on  the 
work  of  his  salvation. 

They  who  are  m  Christ,  therefore,  are  new  creatures.  They 
are  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  does  not  refer  exclu- 
sively to  their  regeneration,  but  to  the  process  by  which  the  sin- 
ner is  transformed  into  the  image  of  Christ. 


218  PART  m.     Cn.  XVin.  —  SANCTIFICATION. 

Argument  from  the  Believer^  s  Union  with  Christ. 

4.  All  that  tlie  Scriptures  teach  concernmg  the  miion  between 
the  believer  and  Christ,  and  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
proves  the  supernatural  character  of  our  sanctification.  Men  do 
not  make  themselves  holy ;  their  holiness,  and  their  gro^vth  in 
grace,  are  not  due  to  their  own  fidelity,  or  firmness  of  purpose,  or 
watchfulness  and  diligence,  although  all  these  are  required,  but 
to  the  divine  influence  by  which  they  are  rendered  thus  faithful, 
watchful,  and  diligent,  and  which  produces  in  them  the  fruits  of 
righteousness.  Without  me,  saith  our  Lord,  ye  can  do  nothing. 
As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the 
vine,  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me.  The  hand  is  not 
more  dependent  on  the  head  for  the  continuance  of  its  vitality, 
than  is  the  believer  on  Christ  for  the  continuance  of  spiritual  life 
in  the  soul. 

Argument  from  related  Doctrines. 

5.  This,  however,  is  one  of  those  doctrines  which  pervade  the 
•whole  Scriptures.  It  follows  of  necessity  from  what  the  Bible 
■teaches  of  the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall ;  it  is  assumed, 
asserted,  and  implied  in  all  that  is  revealed  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion. By  their  apostasy,  men  lost  the  image  of  God ;  they  are 
born  in  a  state  of  alienation  and  condemnation.  They  are  by  na- 
ture destitute  of  spiritual  life.  From  this  state  it  is  as  impossible 
that  they  should  deliver  themselves,  as  that  those  in  the  grave 
should  restore  life  to  their  wasted  bodies,  and  when  restored, 
continue  and  invigorate  it  by  their  own  power.  Our  whole  sal- 
vation is  of  Christ.  Those  who  are  in  the  grave  hear  his  voice. 
They  are  raised  by  his  power.  And  when  they  live  it  is  He  who 
lives  in  them.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  our  Lord  Himself  so 
clearly  and  so  frequently  teaches,  and  upon  which  his  Apostles  so 
strenuously  insist.  St.  Paul  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  where  he  treats  of  this  subject  "  in  ex- 
tenso,"  has  for  his  main  object  to  prove  that  as  we  are  not  justified 
for  our  own  righteousness,  so  we  are  not  sanctified  by  our  own 
power,  or  by  the  mere  objective  power  of  the  truth.  The  law,  the 
revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  including  everything  which  He  has 
made  known  to  man  either  as  a  rule  of  obedience  or  as  exhibiting 
his  own  attributes  and  purposes,  was  equally  inadequate  to  secure 
justification  and  sanctification.  As  it  demanded  perfect  obedience 
and  pronounced  accursed  those  who  continue  not  in  all   tilings 


§  i.j  ITS  NATURE.  219 

written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them,  it  can  only  condemn. 
It  can  never  pronounce  the  sinner  just.  And  as  it  was  a  mere 
outward  presentation  of  the  truth,  it  could  no  more  change  the 
heart  than  light  could  give  sight  to  the  blind.  He  winds  up  his 
discussions  of  the  subject  with  the  exclamation,  "  O  wretched 
man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  ?  I  thank  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  His  de- 
liverance was  to  be  effected  by  God  through  Jesus  Christ.  We 
learn  from  the  eighth  chapter  that  he  was  fully  confident  of  this 
deliverance,  and  we  learn  also  the  ground  on  which  that  confi- 
dence rested.  It  was  not  that  he  had  in  regeneration  received 
strength  to  sanctify  himself,  or  that  by  the  force  of  his  own  will, 
or  by  the  diligent  use  of  natural  or  appointed  means,  the  end  was 
to  be  accomplished  without  further  aid  from  God.  On  the  con- 
trary, his  confidence  was  founded,  £1.)  On  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  delivered  from  the  law,  from  its  curse,  and  from  its  inexor- 
able demand  of  perfect  obedience.  (^2.)  On  the  fact  that  he  had 
received  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  a  new,  divine,  and  imperishable 
Hfe.  (3.)  This  life  was  not  a  mere  state  of  mind,  but  the  life  of 
God,  or  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  the  heart ;  which  indwelling 
secured  not  only  the  continuance  of  "  spiritual  mindedness,"  but 
even  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  "  For  if,"  says  he,  "  the 
spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  he 
that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall,  also  quicken  (CwoTrotr^o-et, 
make  alive  ^vith  the  life  of  Christ)  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit 
that  dwelleth  in  you."  {i.)  Being  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  as 
the  controlling  principle  of  their  inward  and  outward  life,  believers 
are  the  sons  of  God.  The  Spirit  of  God  which  is  in  them  being 
the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  is  in  them  the  Spirit  of  sonship,  i.  e.,  it  pro- 
duces in  them  the  feelings  of  sons  toward  God,  and  assures  them 
of  their  title  to  all  the  privileges  of  his  children.  (5.)  The  sanc- 
tification  and  ultimate  salvation  of  believers  are  secured  by  the 
immutable  decree  of  God.  For  those  "  whom  he  did  foreknow  he 
also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son  ; 
....  moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called : 
and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified :  and  whom  he  justified, 
them  he  also  glorified."  This  last  includes  sanctification ;  the  in- 
ward glory  of  the  soul ;  the  divine  image  as  retraced  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  which  to  and  in  the  believer  is  the  Spirit  of  glory.  (1 
Pet.  iv.  14.)  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  renders  the  believer 
glorious.  (6.)  The  infinite  and  immutable  love  which  induced 
God  to  give  his  own  Son  for  our  salvatirn,  renders  it  certain  that 


220  PART  III.    ch.  xvni.  —  sanctification. 

all  other  tilings  shall  be  given  necessary  to  keep  them  in  the  love 
and  fellowshij)  of  God.  Salvation,  therefore,  from  beginning  to 
end  is  of  grace  ;  not  only  as  being  gratuitous  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  merit  on  the  part  of  the  saved,  but  also  as  being  carried  on  by 
the  continued  operation  of  grace,  or  the  supernatural  power  of 
the  Spirit.  Christ  is  our  all.  He  is  of  God  made  unto  us  wis- 
dom, and  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption. 

§  2.    Wherein  it  consists. 

Admitting  sanctification  to  be  a  supernatural  work,  the  ques- 
tion still  remains,  What  does  it  consist  in  ?  What  is  the  nature 
of  the  effect  produced  ?     The  truth  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  all  the  Scriptural  representations  of  this  subject  is,  that  regen- 
eration, the  quickening,  of  which  believers  are  the  subject,  while 
it  involves  the  implanting,  or  communication  of  a  new  principle 
or  form  of   life,  does  not    effect  the    immediate  and  entire  de- 
liverance of  the  soul  from  all  sin.     A  man  raised  from  the  dead 
may  be  and  long  continue  to  be,  in  a  very  feeble,  diseased,  and 
I   suffering  state.     So  the  soul  by  nature  dead  in  sin,  may  be  quick- 
1  ened  together  with  Christ,  and  not  be  rendered  thereby  perfect. 
{  The  principle  of  life  may  be  very  feeble,  it  may  have  much  in 
I  the  soul  uncongenial  with  its  nature,  and  the  conflict  between  the 
I  old  and  the  new  life  may  be  protracted  and  painful.     Such  not 
;  only  may  be,  but  such  in  fact  is  the  case  in  all  the  ordinary  ex- 
\|  perience  of  the  people  of  God.     Here  we  fmd  one  of  the  charac- 
teristic   and   far-reaching   differences    between   the  Romish  and 
Protestant  systems  of  doctrine  and  religion.     According  to  the 
Romish  system,  nothing  of  the  nature  of  sin  remains  in  the  soul 
after  regeneration  as  effected  in  baptism.    From  this  the  theology 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  deduces  its  doctrine  of  the  merit  of  good 
works  ;    of   perfection  ;  of   works  of   supererogation ;  and,  indi- 
rectly, those  of   absolution  and  indulgences.     But  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  the  universal  experience  of  Christians,   and  the 
undeniable  evidence  of  history,  regeneration  does  not  remove  all 
sin.     The  Bible  is  filled  with  the  record  of  the  inward  conflicts  of 
the  most  eminent  of  the  servants  of  God,  with  their  falls,  their 
backslidings,  their  repentings,  and  their  lamentations  over  their 
continued  shortcomings.     And  not  only  this,  but  the  nature  of 
the  conflict  between  good  and  evil  in  the  heart  of  the  renewed 
is  fully  described,  the  contending  principles  are  distinguished  and 
designated,  and  the  necessity,  difficulties,  and  perils  of  the  strug- 
gle, as  well  as  the  method  of  properly  sustaining  it,  are  set  forth 


§  2.]  WHEREIN  IT   CONSISTS.  221 

repeatedly  and  in  detail.  In  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  we  have  an  account  of  this  conflict  elaborately  de- 
scribed by  the  Apostle  as  drawii  from  his  own  experience.  And 
the  same  thing  occurs  in  Galatians  v.  16,  17.  This  I  say  then, 
"  Walk  in  the  Spirit,  and  ye  shall  not  fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh. 
For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the 
flesh :  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other :  so  that  ye 
cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would."  Again,  in  Ephesians  vi.  10 
-18,  in  view  of  the  conflict  which  the  believer  has  to  sustain  with 
the  evils  of  his  own  heart  and  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  the 
Apostle  exhorts  his  brethren  to  be  strong  in  the  Lord,  and  in  the 

power  of  his  might "  Wherefore  take  unto  you  the  whole 

armoiu'  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  withstand  in  the  evil  day,  , 
and  having  done  all,  to  stand."  / 

With  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  the  experience  of  Chris- 
tians in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  Church  agrees.  Their 
writings  are  filled  with  the  account  of  their  struggles  mth  the  re- 
mains of  sin  in  their  own  hearts  ;  with  confessions  ;  with  prayers 
for  divine  aid ;  and  with  longings  after  the  final  victory  over  all 
evil,  which  is  to  be  experienced  only  in  heaven.  The  great  Hghts 
of  the  Latin  Church,  the  Augustines  and  Bernards  and  F^nelons, 
were  humble,  penitent,  struggUng  believers,  even  to  the  last,  and 
with  Paul  did  not  regard  themselves  as  having  already  attained, 
or  as  being  already  perfect.  And  what  the  Bible  and  Christian 
experience  prove  to  be  true,  history  puts  beyond  dispute.  Either 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  regeneration  in  the  world,  or  regenera-  t 
tion  does  not  remove  all  sin  from  those  who  are  its  subjects.  1/ 

Putting  off  the  Old,  and  putting  on  the  New  Man. 

Such  being  the  foundation  of  the  Scriptural  representations 
concerning  sanctification,  its  nature  is  thereby  determined.  As 
all  men  since  the  fall  are  in  a  state  of  sin,  not  only  sinners  be- 
cause guilty  of  specific  acts  of  transgression,  but  also  as  depraved, 
their  nature  perverted  and  corrupted,  regeneration  is  the  infusion 
of  a  new  principle  of  life  in  this  corrupt  nature.  It  is  leaven 
introduced  to  diffuse  its  influence  gradually  through  the  whole 
mass.  Sanctification,  therefore,  consists  in  two  things :  first, 
the  removing  more  a,nd  more  the  principles  of  evil  still  infecting 
our  nature,  and  destroying  their  power ;  and  secondly,  the  •>- 1 
growth  of_the  principle  of  spiritual  Hfe  until  it  controls  the 
thoughts,  feelings,  and  acts,  and  brings  the  soul  into  conformity 
to  the  image  of  Christ. 


i 


222  PART  m.    Ch.  XVIII.  —  sanctification. 

Paul  details  Ms  oivn  JExjJerience  in  Romans  vii.  7-25. 

The  classical  passages  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  natui'e 
of  this  work  are  the  following,  —  Romans  vii.  7-25.  This  is  not 
the  place  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  whether  the  Apostle  in 
this  passage  is  detailing  his  own  experience  or  not.  This  is  the 
interpretation  given  to  it  by  Augustinians  in  all  ages.  It  is 
enough  to  say  here  that  the  "  onus  probandi  "  rests  on  those  who 
take  the  opposite  view  of  the  passage.  It  must  require  very 
strong  proof  that  the  Apostle  is  not  speaking  of  himseK  and 
giving  his  own  experience  as  a  Christian,  when,  — 

1.  His  object  in  the  whole  discussion  throughout  the  sixth  and 
seventh  chapters,  is  to  prove  that  the  1§22,  as  it  cannot  justify, 
neither  can  it  sanctify  ;  as  it  cannot  deliver  from  the  guilt,  so 
neither  can  it  free  us  from  the  power  of  sin.  This  is  not  the 
fault  of  the  law,  for  it  is  spiritual,  holy,  just,  and  good.  It  com- 
mends itself  to  the  reason  and  the  conscience  as  being  just  what 
it  ought  to  be  ;  requiring  neither  more  nor  less  than  what  it  is 
right  should  be  demanded,  and  threatening  no  penalty  which 
want  of  conformity  to  its  requirements  does  not  justly  merit. 
What  is  the  effect  of  the  objective  presentation  of  the  ideal  stand- 
ard of  moral  perfection  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be  conformed 
on  the  penalty  of  death  ?  The  Apostle  tells  us  that  the  effects 
are,  (a.)  A  great  increase  of  knowledge.  He  had  not  known 
lust,  had  not  the  law  said.  Thou  shalt  not  covet.  (5.)  A  sense 
of  moral  pollution,  and  consequently  of  shame  and  self-loathing, 
(c.)  A  sense  of  guilt,  or  of  just  exposure  to  the  penalty  of  the 
law  of  wliich  our  whole  Uves  are  a  continued  transgTCSsion.  (<^.) 
A  sense  of  utter  helplessness.  The  standard,  although  holy,  just, 
and  good,  is  too  high.  We  know  we  liever  can  of  ourselves  con- 
form to  it ;  neither  can  we  make  satisfaction  for  past  transgres-, 
si  on.  (e.)  The  result  of  the  whole  is  despair.  The  law  kills. 
It  destroys  not  only  all  self-complacency,  but  all  hope  of  ever 
being  able  to  effect  our  own  salvation.  (/.)  And  thus  it  leads 
the  sinner  to  look  out  of  himself  for  salvation ;  i.  e.,  for  deliver- 
ance from  the  power,  as  well  as  the  guilt  of  sin.  The  lavr  is  a 
schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  Christ.  Why  could  not  the  Apostle 
say  all  this  of  himself  ?  There  is  nothing  here  inconsistent  with 
the  character  or  experience  of  a  true  believer.  It  is  ^s  true  of 
the  Christian  that  he  is  not  sanctified  by  moral  suasion,  by  the 
objective  presentation  of  truth,  as  it  is  of  the  unrenewed  sinner, 
that  he  is  not  regenerated  by  any  such  outward  influences.     It  is, 


§  2.]  WHEREIN  IT   CONSISTS.  223 

therefore,  perfectly  pertinent  to  the  Apostle's  object  that  he 
should  detail  Iiis  o^vn  experience  that  sanctification  could  not  be 
effected  by  the  law. 

2.  But  in  the  second  place,  he  uses  the  first  person  singular 
throughout.  He  says,  "  I  had  not  known  sin,"  "  I  died,"  "  The 
commandment  which  was  ordained  to  life,  I  found  to  be  unto 
death,"  "  I  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good,"  "  I  delight  in 
the  laAV  of  God  after  the  inward  man,  but  I  see  another  law  in 
my  members,"  etc.,  etc.  We  are  bound  to  understand  the  Apos- 
tle to  speak  of  liimself  in  the  use  of  sucii  language,  unless  there 
be  something  in  the  context,  or  in  the  nature  of  what  is  said,  to 
render  the  reference  to  him  impossible.  It  has  been  shown,  how- 
ever, that  the  context  favours,  if  it  does  not  absolutely  demand 
the  reference  of  what  is  said  to  the  Apostle  himself.  And  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  experience  here  detailed  inconsistent  Avith 
the  experience  of  the  true  children  of  God,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  same  humility,  the  same  sense  of  guilt,  the  same 
consciousness  of  indwelling  sin,  the  same  conviction  of  helpless- 
ness, here  expressed,  are  found  in  all  the  penitential  portions  of 
Scripture.  Job,  David,  Isaiah,  and  Nehemiah,  make  the  same 
confessions  and  lamentations  that  the  Apostle  here  makes.  The 
same  is  true  of  believers  since  the  coming  of  Christ.  There  is 
no  one  of  them,  not  even  the  holiest,  who  is  not  constrained  to 
speak  of  himself  as  Paul  here  speaks,  unless  indeed  he  chooses  to 
give  the  language  of  the  Apostle  a  meaning  which  it  was  never 
intended  to  express. 

3.  While  the  passage  contains  nothing  inconsistent  with  the 
experience  of  true  believers,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  experi- 
ence of  unrenewed  men.  They  are  not  the  subjects  of  the  in- 
ward conflict  here  depicted.  There  is  in  them  indeed  often  a 
struggle  protracted  and  painful,  between  reason  and  conscience 
on  the  one  side,  and  evil  passion  on  the  other.  But  there  is  not 
in  the  unrenewed  that  utter  renunciation  of  self,  that  looking 
for  help  to  God  in  Christ  alone,  and  that  delight  in  the  law  of 
God,  of  which  the  Apostle  here  speaks. 

What  Romans  vii.  7-25  teaches. 

Assuming,  then,  that  we  have  in  this  chapter  an  account  of  the  \ 
experience  of  a  true  and  even  of  an  advanced  Christian,  we  learn 
that  in  every  Christian  there  is  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil ;  that  ' 
the  original  corruption  of  nature  is  not  entirely  removed  by  re- 
generation ;  that  although  the  believer  is  made  a  new  creature. 


224  PART  m.   ch.  xvni.— sanctification. 

is  translated  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of 
God's  dear  Son,  he  is  but  partially  sanctified ;  that  his  selfishness, 
pride,  discontent,  worldliness,  still  cleave  to,  and  torment  him ; 
that  they  effectually  prevent  his  "  doing  what  he  would,"  they 
prevent  his  living  without  sin,  they  prevent  his  intercourse  with 
God  being  as  intimate  and  uninterrupted  as  he  could  and  does 
desire.  He  finds  not  only  that  he  is  often,  even  daily,  overcome 
so  as  to  sin  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  but  also  that  his  faith, 
love,  zeal,  and  devotion  are  never  such  as  to  satisfy  his  own  con- 
science ;  much  less  can  they  satisfy  God.  He  therefore  is  daily 
called  upon  to  confess,  repent,  and  pray  for  forgiveness.  The 
Apostle  designates  these  conflicting  principles  which  he  found 
within  himself,  the  one,  indwelling  sin ;  "  sin  that  dwelleth  in 
me ;  "  or  the  "  law  in  my  members  ;  "  "  the  law  of  sin ; "  the 
other,  "  the  mind,'.'  "  the  law  of  my  mind,"  "  the  inward  man." 
His  internal  self,  the  Ego,  was  sometimes  controlled  by  the  one, 
and  sometimes  by  the  other. 

We  learn,  further,  that  the  control  of  the  evil  principle  is  re- 
sisted, that  subjection  to  it  is  regarded  as  a  hateful  bondage,  that 
the  ^opd  principle  is  in  the  main  victorious,  and  that  through 
1  Christ  it  will  ultimately  be  completely  triumphant.  Sanctifica- 
jtion  therefore,  according  to  this  representation,  consists  in  the 
!  gradual  triumph  of  the  new  nature  implanted  in  regeneration 
-iover  the  evil  that  still  remains  after  the  heart  is  renewed.  In 
other  words,  as  elsewhere  expressed,  it  is  a  dying  unto  sin  and 
living  unto  righteousness.     (1  Pet.  ii.  24.) 

Gralatians  v.  16-26. 

Another  passage  of  like  import  is  Galatians  v.  16-26,  "  Walk 
in  the  Spirit,  and  ye  shall  not  fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh.  For 
the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the 
flesh  ;  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other  :  so  that  ye 
cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would,"  etc.,  etc.  The  Scriptm-es 
teach  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  his  people,  not  only  col- 
lectively as  the  Church,  but  individually  in  every  believer,  so 
that  of  every  Christian  it  may  be  said,  he  is  a  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  God  is  said  to  dwell  wherever  He  permanently 
manifests  his  presence,  whether  as  of  old  in  the  temple,  or  in 
the  hearts  of  his  people,  in  the  Church,  or  in  heaven.  And  as 
the  Spirit  dwells  in  believers,  He  there  manifests  his  life-giving, 
controlling  power,  and  is  in  them  the  principle,  or  source,  or  con- 
trolling influence  which  determines  their  inward  and  outward  life. 


§2.]  WHEREIN   IT   CONSISTS.  225 

By  the  flesh,  in  the  doctrinal  portions  of  Scripture,  is  never,  un- 
less the  word  be  limited  by  the  context,  meant  merely  our  sen- 
suous  nature,  but  our  fallen  nature,  i.  e.,  our  nature  as  it  is  in 
itself,  apart  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  As  our  Lord  says  (John 
iii.  6),  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  These  then  are  the  principles 
which  "  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other."  No  man  can  act 
independently  of  both.  He  must  obey  one  or  the  other.  He 
may  sometimes  obey  the  one,  and  sometimes  the  other ;  but  one 
or  the  other  must  prevail.  The  Apostle  says  of  behevers  that 
they  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  its  affections  and  lusts.  They 
have  renounced  the  authority  of  the  evil  principle  ;  they  do  not 
wilhngly,  or  of  set  purpose,  or  habitually  yield  to  it.  They 
struggle  against  it,  and  not  only  endeavour,  but  actually  do  cru- 
cify it,  although  it  may  die  a  long  and  painful  death. 

Uphesians  iv.  22-24. 

In  Ephesians  iv.  22-24,  we  are  told  :  "  Put  off  concerning  the 
former  conversation  the  old  man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to 
the  deceitful  lusts  ;  and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind ; 
and"  put  ye  "on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness."  By^Jhe  old  man  is  to  be  un- 
derstood the  former  self  with  all  .the  evils  belonging  to  its  natural 
state.  This  was  to  be  laid  aside  as  a  worn  and  soiled  garment, 
and  a  new,  pure  self,  the  new  man,  was  to  take  its  place.  This 
change,  although  expressed  in  a  figure  borrowed  from  a  change 
of  raiment,  was  a  profound  inward  change  produced  by  a  creating 
process,  by  which  the  soul  is  new  fashioned  after  the  image  of 
God  in  righteousness  and  holiness.  It  is  a  renewing  as  to  the 
Spirit,  i.  e.,  the  interior  life  of  the  mind  ;  or  as  Meyer  and  Elli- 
cott,  the  best  of  modern  commentators,  both  interpret  the  phrase, 
"  By  the  Spirit "  (the  Holy  Spirit)  dwelling  in  the  mind. 
This  is  a  transformation  in  which  believers  are  exhorted  to 
cooperate  ;  for  which  they  are  to  labour,  and  which  is  therefore  a 
protracted  work.  ■  Sanctification,  therefore,  according  to  this  rep- 
resentation, consists  in  the  removal  of  the  evils  which  belong  to 
us  in  our  natural  condition,  and  in  being  made  more  and  more 
conformed  to  the  image  of  God  through  the  gracious  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  us. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  in  such  passages  as  those  above  cited 
that  the  nature  of  sanctification  is  set  forth.  The  Bible  is  full  of 
exhortations  and  commands  addressed  to  the  people  of  God,  to 

VOL.   III.  15 


226  PART  ni.    Cn.  XVIII.  —  SANCTIFICATION. 

those  recognized  and  assumed  to  be  regenerate,  requiring  them, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  resist  their  evil  passions  and  propensities,  to 
lay  aside  all  malice,  and  wrath,  and  pride,  and  jealousy  ;  and  on 
the  other,  to  cultivate  all  the  graces  of  the  Spirit,  faith,  love, 
hope,  long-suffering,  meekness,  lowliness  of  mind,  and  brotherly 
kindness.  At  the  same  time  they  are  reminded  that  it  is  God  who 
worketh  in  them  both  to  will  and  to  do,  and  that  therefore  they 
are  constantly  to  seek  his  aid  and  to  depend  upon  his  assistance. 
It  follows  from  this  view  of  the  subject  that  sanctification  is  not 
only,  as  before  proved,  a  supernatural  work,  but  also  that  it  does 
not  consist  exclusively  in  a  series  of  a  new  kind  of  acts.  It_is 
the  making  the  tree  good,  in  order  that  the  friiit.  may  be  good. 
It  iiivolves  an  essential  change  of  character.  As  regeneration  is 
not  an  act  of  the  subject  of  the  work,  but  in  the  language  of  the 
Bible  a  new  birth,  a  new  creation,  a  quickening  or  communicat- 
ing a  new  life,  and  in  the  language  of  the  old  Latin  Church,  the 
infusion  of  new  habits  of  grace ;  so  sanctification  in  its  essential 
nature  is  not  holy  acts,  but  such  a  change  in  the  state  of  the  soul, 
that  sinful  acts  become  more  infrequent,  and  holy  acts  more  and 
more  habitual  and  controlling.  This  view  alone  is  consistent! 
with  the  Scriptural  representations,  and  with  the  account  given  ii 
the  Bible  of  the  way  m  which  this  radical  change  of  character  is| 
carried  on  and  consunnnated. 

§  3.   The  Method  of  Sanctification. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  although  sanctification  does! 
not  exclude  all  cooperation  on  the  part  of  its  subjects,  but,  on  thej 
contrary,  calls  for  their  unremitting  and  strenuous  exertion,  it  ie 
nevertheless  the  work  of  God.  It  is  not  carried  on  as  a  merel 
process  of  moral  cultm-e  by  moral  means  ;  it  is  as  truly  supernat-j 
ural  in  its  method  as  in  its  nature.  What  the  Bible  teaches  inl 
answer  to  the  question,  How  a  soul  by  nature  spiritually  dead,! 
being  quickened  by  the  mighty  power  of  God,  is  gradually  trans-j 
formed  into  the  image  of  Christ,  is  substantially  as  follows,  — 

The  Soul  is  led  to  exercise  Faith. 

1.  It  is  led  to  exercise  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  re- 
ceive Him  as  its  Saviour,  conunitting  itself  to  Him  to  be  by  his  I 
merit  and  grace  delivered  from  the  guilt  and  po"s^  er  of  sin.     This  I 
is  the  first  step,  and  secures  all  the  rest,  not  because  of  its  inher- 
ent virtue  or  efficacy,  but  because,  according  to  the  covenant  of  1 
grace,  or  plan  of  salvation,  which  God  has  revealed  and  wliich  Hej 


§3.]  METHOD   OF   SANCTIFICATION.  227 

has  pledged  Himself  to  carry  out,  He  becomes  bound  by  his 
promise  to  accompHsli  the  full  salvation  from  sin  of  every  one 
who  believes. 

The  Effect  of  Union  ivith   Christ. 

2.  The  soul  by  this  act  of  faith  becomes  united  to  Christ. 
We  are  in  Him  by  faith.  The  consequences  of  this  union  are, 
(a.)  Participation  in  his  merits.  His  perfect  righteousness, 
agreeably  to  the  stipulations  of  the  covenant  of  redemption,  is 
imputed  to  the  believer.  He  is  thereby  justified.  He  is  intro- 
duced into  a  state  of  favour  or  grace,  and  rejoices  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God.  (Rom.  v.  1-3.)  This  is,  as  the  Bible  teaches, 
the  essential  prehminary  condition  of  sanctification.  While 
imder  the  law  we  are  under  the  curse.  While  under  the  curse 
we  are  the  enemies  of  God  and  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.  It 
is  only  when  delivered  from  the  law  by  the  body  or  death  of 
Christ,  and  united  to  Him,  that  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God. 
(Rom.  vi.  8  ;  vii.  4-6.)  Sin,  therefore,  says  the  Apostle,  shall  not 
reign  over  us,  because  we  are  not  under  the  law.  (Rom.  vi.  14.) 
Deliverance  from  the  law  is  the  necessary  condition  of  deliv- 
erance from  sin.  All  the  relations  of  the  believer  are  thus 
changed.  He  is  translated  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and 
introduced  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  Instead 
of  an  outcast,  a  slave  under  condemnation,  he  becomes  a  child  of 
God,  assured  of  his  love,  of  his  tenderness,  and  of  his  care.  He 
may  come  to  Him  with  confidence.  He  is  brought  under  all  the 
influences  which  in  their  full  effect  constitute  heaven.  He  there- 
fore becomes  a  new  creature.  He  has  passed  from  death  to  life  ; 
from  darkness  to  light,  from  hell  (the  kingdom  of  Satan)  to 
heaven.  He  sits  with  Christ  in  heavenly  places.  (Eph.  ii.  6.) 
(5.)  Another  consequence  of  the  union  with  Christ  effected  by 
faith,  is  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  Christ  has  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  in  order 
that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Gal.  iii. 
13,  14.)  It  was  not  consistent  with  the  perfections  or  purposes 
of  God  that  the  Spirit  should  be  given  to  dwell  with  his  saving  in- 
fluences in  the  apostate  children  of  men,  until  Christ  had  made  a 
full  satisfaction  for  the  'sins  of  the  world.  But  as  with  God  there 
are  no  distinctions  of  time,  Christ  was  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  and  his  death  availed  as  fully  for  the  salvation  of  those 
who  hved  before,  as  for  that  of  those  who  have  lived  since  his 
coming  in  the  flesh.     (Rom.   iii.  25,  26 ;  Heb.  ix.  15.)     The 


228  PART  m.    Ch.  xviii.  —  sanctification. 

Spirit  was  given  to  the  people  of  God  from  tiie  beginning.  But 
as  our  Lord  says  (John  x.  10)  that  He  came  mto  the  world  not 
only  that  men  might  have  life,  but  that  they  might  have  it  more 
abundantly,  the  effusion,  or  copious  communication  of  the  Spirit 
is  always  represented  as  the  great  characteristic  of  the  Messiah's 
advent.  (Joel  ii.  28,  29  ;  Acts  ii.  16-21  ;  John  vii.  38,  39.)  Our 
Lord,  therefore,  in  his  last  discourse  to  his  disciples,  said  it  was 
expedient  for  them  that  He  went  away,  for  "if  I  go  not  away, 
the  Comforter  (the  UapaKX-qros,  the  helper)  will  not  come  unto 
you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  Him  unto  you."  (John  xvi.  7.) 
He  was  to  supply  the  place  of  Christ  as  to  his  visible  presence, 
carry  on  his  work,  gather  in  his  people,  transform  them  into  the 
likeness  of  Christ,  and  communicate  to  them  all  the  benefits  of 
his  redemption.  Where  the  Spirit  is,  there  Christ  is  ;  so  that, 
the  Spirit  being  with  us,  Christ  is  with  us  ;  and  if  the  Spirit 
dwells  in  us,  Christ  dwells  in  us.  (Rom.  viii.  9-11.)  In  par- 
taking, therefore,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  believers  are  partakers  of 
the  life  of  Christ.  The  Spirit  was  given  to  Him  without  meas- 
ure, and  from  Him  flows  down  to  all  his  members.  This  partici- 
'  pation  of  the  believer  in  the  life  of  Christ,  so  that  every  behever 
may  say  with  the  Apostle,  "  I  live ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
m  me  "  (Gal.  ii.  20),  is  prominently  presented  in  the  Word  of 
God.  (Rom.  vi.  5  ;  vii.  4  ;  John  xiv.  19  ;  Col.  iii.  3,  4.)  The 
two  great  standing  illustrations  of  this  truth  are  the  vine  and  the 
human  body.  The  former  is  presented  at  length  in  John  xv.  1-8  ; 
the  latter  in  1  Corinthians  xii.  11-27  ;  Romans  xii.  5  ;  Ephe- 
sians  i.  22,  23  ;  iv.  15,  16  ;  v.  30 ;  Colossians  i.  18  ;  ii.  19  ;  and 
frequently  elsewhere.  As  the  life  of  the  vine  is  diffused  through 
all  the  branches,  sustaining  and  rendering  them  fruitful ;  and  as 
the  life  of  the  head  is  diffused  through  all  the  members  of  the 
body  making  it  one,  and  imparting  life  to  all,  so  the  life  of  Christ 
is  diffused  through  all  the  members  of  his  mystical  body  making 
them  one  body  in  Him  ;  having  a  common  hf  e  with  their  common 
head.  This  idea  is  urged  specially  in  Ephesians  iv.  15,  16,  where 
it  is  said  that  it  is  from  Christ  that  the  whole  body  fitly  joined 
together,  through  the  spiritual  influence  granted  to  every  part 
according  to  its  measure,  makes  increase  in  love.  It  is  true  that 
this  is  spoken  of  the  Church  as  a  whole.  But  what  is  said  of 
Christ's  mystical  body  as  a  whole  is  true  of  all  its  members  sev- 
erally. He  is  the  prophet,  priest,  and  king  of  the  Church  ;  but 
He  is  also  the  prophet,  priest,  and  king  of  every  believer.  Our 
relation  to  Hun  is  individual  and  personal      The  Church  as  a 


§  8.]  METHOD   OF   SANCTIFICATION.  229 

whole  is  tlie  temple  of  God ;  but  so  is  every  believer.  (1  Cor. 
iii.  16  ;  vi.  19.)  The  Church  is  the  bride  of  Christ,  but  every 
believer  is  the  object  of  that  tender,  peculiar  love  expressed  in 
the  use  of  that  metaphor.  The  last  verse  of  Paul  Gerhardt's 
hymn,  "  Ein  Ljimmlein  geht  und  tragt  die  Schuld,"  every  true 
Christian  may  adopt  as  the  expression  of  his  own  hopes  :  — 

"  Wann  endlich  ich  soil  treten  ein 
In  deines  Reiches  Freuden, 
So  soil  diess  Blut  mein  Piirpur  seyn, 
Ich  will  mich  darein  kleiden  ; 
Es  soil  seyn  meines  Hauptes  Kron' 
In  welcher  ich  will  vor  den  Thron 
Des  hfichsten  Vaters  gehen, 
Und  dir,  dem  er  mich  anvertraut, 
Als  eine  wohlgeschmiickte  Braut, 
An  deiner  Seiten  stehen." 

The  Inward  Work  of  the  Spirit, 

3.  The  indwelling  of  the  Holy  _Sj)irit_  thus  secured  by  union    ^'  ^^  '^ 
with  Christ  becomes  the^  source  of   a  new  spiritual  life,  which  ""^  *"***'  "^ 
constantly  increases  in  power  imtil  everything  uncongenial  with 
it  is  expelled,  and  the  soul  is  perfectly  transformed  into  the  image  "*       '  xu^ 

of  Christ.  It  is  the  office  of  the  Spirit  to  enlighten  the  mind;  ^  -^^^^^^ 
or,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  "  to  enlighten  the  eyes  of 'the  understand- 
ing" (Eph.  i.  18),  that  we  may  know  the  things  freely  given  to 
us  of  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  12)  ;  i.  e.,  the  things  which  God  has  re- 
vealed ;  or,  as  they  are  called  in  v.  14,  "  The  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God."  These  things,  wliich  the  natural  man  cannot 
know,  the  Spirit  enables  the  believer  "  to  discern,"  i.  e.,  to  ap- 
prehend in  their  truth  and  excellence  ;  and  thus  to  experience 
their  power.  The  Spirit,  we  are  taught,  especially  opens  the  eyes 
to_see  the  glory  of  Christ,  to  see  that  He  is  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh  ;  to  discern  not  only  his  divine  perfections,  but  his  love  to 
us,  and  his  suitableness  in  all  respects  as  our  Saviour,  so  that 
those  who  have  not  seen  Him,  yet  believing  on  Him,  rejoice  in 
Him  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory.  This  apprehension 
of  Christ  is  transforming ;  the  soul  is  thereby  changed  into  his 
image,  from  glory  to  glory  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  It  was 
this  inward  revelation  of  Clmst  by  which  Paul  on  his  way  to 
Damascus  was  instantly  converted  from  a  blasphemer  into  a  wor- 
shipper and  self-sacrificing  servant  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

It  is  not,  however,  only  one  object  which  the  opened  eye  of  the 
believer  is  able  to  discern.  The  Spirit  enables  him  to  see  the 
glory  of  God  as  revealed  in  his  works  and  in  his  word ;  the  holiness 


Aji^yi'^l'MX^ 


230  PART  III.     Ch.   XYHl.  —  SANCTIFICATION. 

and  spirituality  of  the  law  ;  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin ;  his 
own  guilt,  pollution,  and  helplessness  ;  the  length  and  breadth,  the 
height  and  depth  of  the  economy  of  redemption ;  and  the  reality, 
glory,  and  infinite  importance  of  the  things  unseen  and  eternal. 
The  soul  is  thus  raised  above  the  world.  It  lives  in  a  higher 
sphere.  It  becomes  more  and  more  heavenly  in  its  character  and 
desires.  All  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible  concerning  God, 
Christ,  and  things  spiritual  and  eternal,  are  so  revealed  by  this 
inward  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  as  to  be  not  only  rightly  discerned, 
but  to  exert,  in  a  measure,  their  proper  influence  on  the  heart 
and  life.  Thus  the  prayer  of  Christ  (John  xvii.  17),  "  Sanctify 
them  through  thy  truth,"  is  answered  in  the  experience  of  his 
people. 

Grod  calls  the  Grraces  of  Ms  People  into  Exercise. 

4.  The  work  of  sanctification  is  carried  on  by  God's  giving 
constant  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  all  the  graces  of  the  Spirit. 
Submission,  confidence,  self-denial,  patience,  and  meekness,  as 
well  as  faith,  hope,  and  love,  are  called  forth,  or  put  to  the  test, 
more  or  less  effectually  every  day  the  believer  passes  on  earth. 
And  by  this  constant  exercise  he  grows  in  grace  and  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  It  is,  however,  prin- 
cipally by  calling  his  people  to  labour  and  suffer  for  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  for  the  good  of  their 
fellow-men,  that  this  salutary  discipline  is  carried  on.  The  best 
Christians  are  in  general  those  who  not  merely  from  restless 
activity  of  natural  disposition,  but  from  love  to  Christ  and  zeal 
for  his  glory,  labour  most  and  suffer  most  in  his  service. 

The   Church  and  Sacraments  as  means  of  G-race. 

5.  One  great  end  of  the  establishment  of  the  Church  on  earth, 
as  the  communion  of  saints,  is  the  edification  of  the  people  of 
God.  The  intellectual  and  social  life  of  man  is  not  developed  in 
isolation  and  solitude.  It  is  only  in  contact  and  collision  with 
his  fellow-men  that  his  powers  are  called  into  exercise  and  his 
social  virtues  are  cultivated.  Thus  also  it  is  by  the  Church- 
life  of  believers,  by  their  communion  in  the  worship  and  service 
of  God,  and  by  their  mutual  good  offices  and  fellowship,  that  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  soul  is  developed.  Therefore  the  Apostle 
says,  "  Let  us  consider  one  another,  to  provoke  unto  love  and  to 
good  works  :  not  forsaking  the  assembling  of  ourselves  together, 
as  the  manner  of  some  is ;  but  exliorting  one  another ;  and  so 


§4.]  GOOD   WORKS.  231 

much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  day  approaching."     (Heb.  x.  24, 
25.) 

6.  The  Spirit  renders  the  ordinances  of  God,  the  word,  sacra- 
ments, and  prayer,  effectual  means  of  promoting  the  sanctifi- 
cation  of  his  people,  and  of  securing  their  ultimate  salvation. 
These,  however,  must  be  more  fuUy  considered  in  the  sequel. 

The  Kingly   Office  of  Christ. 

7.  In  this  connection,  we  are  not  to  overlook  or  undervalue  the 
constant  exercise  of  the  kingly  office  of  Christ.  He  not  only 
reigns  over  his  people,  but  He  subdues  them  to  Himself,  rules 
and  defends  them,  and  restrains  and  conquers  all  his  and  their 
enemies.  These  enemies  are  both  inward  and  outward,  both  seen 
and  miseen  ;  they  are  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil.  The 
strength  of  the  believer  in  contending  with  these  enemies,  is  not 
his  own.  He  is  strong  only  in  the  Lord,  and  in  the  power  of 
his  might.  (Eph.  vi.  10.)  The  weapons,  both  -offensive  and 
defensive,  are  supplied  by  Him,  and  the  disposition  and  the  skill 
to  use  them  are  his  gifts  to  be  sought  by  praying  without  ceasing. 
He  is  an  ever  present  helper.  Whenever  the  Christian  feels  his 
weakness  either  in  resisting  temptation  or  in  the  discharge  of  duty, 
he  looks  to  Christ,  and  seeks  aid  from  Him.  And  all  who  seek 
find.  "VHien  we  f ail,.,  i^^^^^^^  either  from  self-confidence,  or  from 
neglecting  to  call  upon  our  ever  present  and  almighty  King,  who 
is^  always  ready  to  protect  and  deliver  those  who  put  their  trust 
in  Him.  But  there  are  dangers  which  we  do  not  apprehend, 
enemies  Avhom  we  do  not  see,  and  to  which  we  would  become  an 
easy  prey,  were  it  not  for  the  watchful  care  of  Him  who  came 
into  the  world  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  and.  to  bruise 
Satan  under  our  feet.  The  Christian  runs  his  race  "  looking  unto 
Jesus  ;  "  the  life  he  fives,  he  lives  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God ;  it 
is  by  the  constant  worship  of  Christ ;  by  the  constant  exercise 
of  love  toward  Him ;  by  constant  endeavours  to  do  his  will ;  and 
by  constantly  looking  to  Him  for  the  supply  of  grace  and  for  pro- 
tection and  aid,  that  he  overcomes  sin  and  finally  attains  the  prize 
of  the  hiffh-eallins:  of  God. 


^tj 


§  4.  The  Fruits  of  Sanctifieation,  or  Grood  Works. 

Their  Nature. 

The  fruits  of  sanctification  are  good  works.     Our  Lord  says, 
"  A  good  tree  bringeth  not  forth  corrupt  fruit  ;  neither  doth  a 


232  PART  m.   Ch.  xvni.  —  sanctification. 

corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit,  For  every  tree  is  known  by 
his  own  fruit :  for  of  thorns  men  do  not  gather  figs,  nor  of  a  bram- 
ble bush  gather  they  grapes."  (Luke  vi.  43,  44.)  By  good  works, 
in  this  connection,  are  meant  not  only  the  inward  exercises  of 
the  religious  life,  but  also  outward  acts,  such  as  can  be  seen  and 
appreciated  by  others. 

There  are  three  senses  in  which  works  may  be  called  good,  — 

1.  When  as  to  the  matter  of  them  they  are  Avhat  the  law  pre- 
scribes. In  this  sense  even  the  heathen  perform  good  works  ;  as 
the  Apostle  says,  Romans  ii.  14,  "  The  Gentiles  ...  do  by  na- 
ture the  tilings  contained  in  the  law."  That  is,  they  perform  acts 
of  justice  and  mercy.  No  man  on  earth  is  so  wicked  as  never, 
in  this  sense  of  the  term,  to  be  the  author  of  some  good  works. 
This  is  what  the  theologians  call  civil  g^oodness,  whose  sphere  is 
the  social  relations  of  men. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  by  good  works  are  meant  works  which 
both  in  the  matter  of  them,  and  in  the  design  and  niotives  of  the 
agent,  are  what  the  law  requires.  In  other  words,  a  work  is  good, 
when  there  is  nothing  either  in  the  agent  or  in  the  act  which  the 
law  condemns.  In  this  sense  not  even  the  works  of  the  holiest  of 
God's  people  are  good.  No  man  is  ever,  since  the  fall,  in  this 
life,  in  such  an  inward  state  that  he  can  stand  before  God  and 
be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  what  he  is  or  of  what  he  does. 
All  our  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags.  (Is.  bdv.  6.)  Paul 
found  to  the  last  a  law  of  sin  in  his  members.  He  groaned  under 
a  body  of  death.  In  one  of  his  latest  epistles  he  says  he  had  not 
attained,  or  was  not  already  perfect,  and  all  Christians  are  re- 
quired to  pray  daily  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  What  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  of  the  imperfection  of  the  best  works  of  the  behever, 
is  confirmed  by  the  irrepressible  testimony  of  consciousness.  It 
matters  not  what  the  lips  may  say,  every  man's  conscience  tells 
him  that  he  is  always  a  sinner,  that  he  never  is  free  from  moral 
defilement  in  the  sight  of  an  infinitely  holy  God.  On  this  sub- 
ject the  Form  of  Concord  ^  says,  "  Lex  Dei  credentibus  bona  opera 
ad  eum  modum  praescribit,  ut  simul,  tanquam  in  speculo,  nobis 
commonstret,  ea  omnia  in  nobis  in  hac  vita  adhuc  imperfecta  et 
impura  esse ;  "  and  '^  "  Credentes  in  hac  vita  non  perfecte,  com- 
pletive vel  consummative  (ut  veteres  locuti  sunt)  renovantur.  Et 
quamvis  ipsorum  peccata  Christi  obedientia  absolutissima  con- 
tecta  sint,  ut  credentibus  non  ad  damnationem   imputentur,  et 

1  VI.  21  ;  Hase,  Lihn  Symbolici,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  184G,  p.  723. 

2  VI.  7  ;  Ibid.  p.  719. 


§4.]  GOOD   WORKS.  233 

per  Splrltiim  Sanctum  veteris  Adami  mortificatio  et  renovatio  in 
spiritn  mentis  eorum  inclioata  sit :  tamen  vetus  Adam  in  ipsa  na- 
tura,  omnibusque  illius  interioribus  et  exterioribus  viribus  adhuc 
semper  inh?eret."  Calvin  '  says,  "  Seligat  ex  tota  sua  vita  sanc- 
tus  Dei  servus,  quod  in  ejus  cursu  maxime  eximium  se  putabit 
edidisse,  bene  revolvat  singulas  partes :  deprehendet  procul  dubio 
alicubi  quod  carnis  pu.tredinem  sapiat,  quando  numquam  ea  est 
nostra  alaeritas  ad  bene  agendum  qu£e  esse  debet,  sed  in  cursu 
retardando  multa  debilitas.  Quanquam  non  obscuras  esse  maculas 
videmus,  quibus  respersa  sint  opera  sanctorum,  fac  tamen  minutis- 
simos  esse  naevos  duntaxat  :  sed  an  oculos  Dei  niliil  offendent, 
coram  quibus  ne  stellse  quidem  purae  sunt  ?  Habemus,  nee  unum 
a  Sanctis  exire  opus,  quod,  si  in  se  censeatur,  non  mereatur  justam 
opprobrii  mercedem." 

Romish  Doctrine  on  Good  Works. 

Against  the  doctrine  that  the  best  works  of  the  believer  are 
imperfect,  the  Romanists  are  especially  denunciatory.  And  with 
good  reason.  It  subverts  their  whole  system,  which  is  founded 
on  the  assumed  merit  of  good  works.  If  the  best  Avorks  of  the 
saints  merit  "  justam  opprobrii  mercedem  "  (i.  e.,  condemnation), 
they  cannot  merit  reward.  Their  argument  on  this  subject  is, 
that  if  the  Protestant  doctrine  be  true  which  declares  the  best 
works  of  "the  believer  to  be  imperfect ;  then  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law  is  impossible  ;  but  if  this  be  so,  then  the  law  is  not  buiding  ; 
for  God  does  not  command  impossibilities.  To  this  it  may  be  an- 
swered, first,  that  the  objection  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  Romanists  themselves.  They  teach  that  man  in  his  natural 
state  since  the  fall  is  unable  to  do  anything  good  in  the  sight 
of  God,  until  he  receives  the  grace  of  God  communicated  in 
baptism.  According  to  the  principle  on  which  the  objection  is 
founded,  the  law  does  not  bind  the  unbaptized.  And  secondly, 
the  objection  assumes  the  fundamental  principle  of  Pelagianism, 
namely  that  ability  hmits  obligation  ;  a  principle  which,  in  the 
sphere  of  morals,  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  consciousness,  and  the 
common  judgment  of  mankind.  We  cannot  be  required  to  do 
what  is  impossible  because  of  the  limitation  of  our  nature  as  creat- 
ures, as  to  create  a  world,  or  raise  the  dead ;  but  to  love  God 
perfectly  does  not  exceed  the  power  of  man  as  he  came  from^ 
the  hands  of  his  maker.  It  is  not  absolutely,  but  only  relatively 
impossible,  that  is,  in  relation  of  the  thing  commanded,  to  us  not; 

1  Institutio,  III.  xiv.  9  ;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  part  ii.  p.  37. 


234  PART  m.    Ch.  xyiii.  —  sanctification. 

as  men,  but  as  sinners.  Although  it  is  essential  to  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  merit,  of  indulgences,  of  works  of  siijDererogation,  and 
of  purgatory,  that  the  renewed  should  be  able  perfectly  to  fulfil 
the  demands  of  the  law,  nevertheless,  Romanists  themselves  are 
compelled  to  admit  the  contrary.  Thus  Bellarmin  says,^  "  Defec- 
tus  charitatis,  quod  videlicet  non  faciamus  opera  nostra  tanto  fer- 
vore  dilectionis,  quanto  faciemus  in  patria,  defectus  quidem  est, 
sed  culpa  et  peccatum  non  est Unde  etiam  charitas  nos- 
tra, quamvis  comparata  ad  charitatem  beatorum  sit  imperfecta, 
tamen  absolute  perfecta  dici  potest."  That  is,  although  our  love 
is  in  fact  imperfect,  it  may  be  called  perfect.  But  calling  it  per- 
fect, does  not  alter  its  nature.  To  the  same  effect  another  of  the 
leading  theologians  of  the  Roman  Church,  Andradius,  says,  "  Pec- 
cata  venalia  per  se  tam  esse  minuta  et  levia,  ut  non  adversentur 
perfectioni  caritatis,  nee  impedire  possint  perfectam  et  absolutam 
legis  obedientiam :  utpote  quae  non  sint  ira  Dei  et  condemnatione, 
sed  venia  digna,  etiamsi  Deus  cum  illis  in  judicium  intret."^ 
That  is,  sins  are  not  sins,  because  men  choose  to  regard  them  as 
trivial. 

Works  of  Supererogation. 

But  if  no  work  of  man  since  the  fall  in  this  life  is  perfectly 
good,  then  it  not  only  follows  that  the  doctrine  of  merit  must  be 
given  up,  but  still  more  obviously,  all  works  of  supererogation 
are  impossible.  Romanists  teach  that  the  renewed  may  not 
only  completely  satisfy  all  the  demands  of  the  law  of  God,  which 
requires  that  we  should  love  Him  with  all  the  heart,  and  all  the 
mind,  and  all  the  strength,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves;  but^ 
that  they  can  do  more  than  the  law  demands,  and  thus  acquire 
more  merit  than  they  need  for  their  own  salvation,  wliich  may 
be  made  available  for  those  who  lack. 

It  is  impossible  that  any  man  can  hold  such  a  doctrine,  unless 
he  first  degrades  the  law  of  God  by  restricting  its  demands  to , 
very  narrow  limits.  The  Romanists  represent  our  relation  to  God 
as  analogous  to  a  citizen's  relation  to  the  state.  Civil  laws  are 
limited  to  a  narrow  sphere.  They  concern  only  our  social  and  po- 
litical obligations.  It  is  easy  for  a  man  to  be  a  good  citizen  ;  to 
fulfil  perfectly  all  that  the  law  of  the  land  requires.  Such  a  man, 
through  love  to  his  country,  may  do  far  more  than  the  law  can 
demand.  He  may  not  only  pay  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due, 
custom  to  whom  custom,  and  honour  to  whom  honour  ;  but  he  may 

1  De  Justificatione,  iv.  xvii  ;  Diaputntiones,  edit.  Paris,  1G08,  vol.  iv.  p.  933,  b. 

2  See  Chemnitz  Examen,  De  Bonis  Operibus,  iii.  edit.  Frankfort,  1574,  part  i.  p.  209,  a. 


§4.]  GOOD   WORKS.  235 

also  devote  liis  time,  his  talents,  liis  whole  fortune  to  the  service  of 
his  country.  Thus  also,  according  to  Romanists,  men  may  not 
only  do  all  that  the  law  of  God  requires  of  men  as  men,  but  they 
may  also  through  love,  far  exceed  its  demands.  This  Mohler  rep- 
resents as  a  great  superiority  of  Romish  ethics  over  the  Protestant 
system.  The  latter,  according  to  him,  limits  man's  obligations  to 
his  legal  liabilities,  to  what  in  justice  may  be  exacted  from  him 
on  pain  of  punishment.  Whereas  the  former  rises  to  the  higher 
sphere  of  love,  and  represents  the  believer  cordially  and  freely  ren- 
dering unto  God  what  in  strict  justice  could  not  be  demanded  of 
him.  "  It  is  the  nature  of  love,  which  stands  far,  even  immeas- 
urably higher  than  the  demands  of  the  law,  never  to  be  satisfied 
with  its  manifestation,  and  to  become  more  and  more  sensitive,  so 
that  believers,  who  are  animated  mth  this  love,  often  appear  to 
men  who  stand  on  a  lower  level  as  fanatics  or  lunatics."  ^  But 
what  if  the  law  itself  is  love  ?  What  if  the  law  demands  all  that 
love  can  render  ?  What  if  the  love  which  the  law  requires  of 
every  rational  creature  calls  for  the  devotion  of  the  whole  soul, 
with  all  its  powers  to  God  as  a  living  sacrifice  ?  It  is  only  by 
making  sin  to  be  no  sin ;  by  teaching  men  that  they  are  perfect 
when  even  their  own  hearts  condemn  them  ;  it  is  only  by  lowering 
the  demands  of  the  law  which,  being  founded  on  the  nature  of 
God,  of  necessity  requires  perfect  conformity  to  the  divine  image, 
that  any  man  in  this  life  can  pretend  to  be  perfect,  or  be  so  in- 
sane as  to  imagine  that  he  can  go  beyond  the  demands  of  the  law 
and  perform  works  of  supererogation. 

Precepts  and  Counsels. 

The  distinction  which  Romanists  make  between  precepts  and 
counsels,  rests  upon  the  same  low  view  of  the  divine  law.  By  pre- 
cepts are  meant  the  specific  commands  of  the  law  which  bind  all 
men,  the  observance  of  wliich  seciires  a  reward,  and  non-observ- 
ance a  penalty.  Whereas  counsels  are  not  commands ;  they  do 
not  bind  the  conscience  of  any  man,  but  are  recommendations  of 
things  peculiarly  acceptable  to  God,  compliance  with  which  mer- 
its a  much  higher  reward  than  the  mere  observance  of  precepts. 
There  are  many  such  counsels  in  the  Bible,  the  most  important  of 
which  are  said  to  be  celibacy,  monastic  obedience,  and  poverty .^ 
No  man  is  bound  to  remain  unmarried,  but  if  he  voluntarily  de- 
termines to  do  so  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  is  a  great  virtue.     No 

1  Mfihler,  SymboUk,  6th  edit.  Mainz,  1843,  p.  216. 

2  Bellarmin,  De  Membris  Ecclesue  Militantis,  lib.  ii.  de  Monacliis,  cap.  7,  8,  Dispiita- 
tiones,  edit  Paris,  1608,  vol.  ii.  pp.  363-365. 


236  PART  III.     Cii.   XVm.  —  SANCTIFICATION. 

one  is  bound  to  renounce  the  acquisition  of  property,  but  if  he 
voluntarily  embraces  a  life  of  absolute  poverty,  it  is  a  great 
merit.  Our  Lord,  however,  demands  everything.  He  saith,  "  He 
that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me  : 
and  he  that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy 
of  me."  "  He  that  findeth  his  life,  shall  lose  it :  and  he  that 
loseth  his  life  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it."  (Matt.  x.  37,  39.)  "  If 
any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and 
wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own 
life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple."  (Luke  xiv.  26.)  The  law 
of  Christ  demands  entire  devotion  to  Him.  If  his  service  re- 
quires that  a  man  should  remain  unmarried,  he  is  bound  to  live  a 
Hf e  of  celibacy  ;  if  it  requires  that  he  should  give  up  all  his  prop- 
erty and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  Christ,  he  is  bound  to  do 
so ;  if  it  requires  him  to  lay  down  his  life  for  Christ's  sake,  he  is 
bound  to  lay  it  down.  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that 
a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.  Nothing  can  go  beyond 
this.  There  can  be  no  sacrifice  and  no  service  which  a  man  can 
make  or  render,  which  duty,  or  the  law  of  Christ,  does  not  de- 
mand when  such  sacrifice  or  service  becomes  necessary  as  the 
proof  or  fruit  of  love  to  Christ.  There  is  no  room,  therefore,  for 
this  distinction  between  counsels  and  precepts,  between  what  the 
law  d^nands  and  what  love  is  willing  to  render.  And  therefore 
the  doctrine  of  works  of  supererogation  is  thoroughly  anti-Chris- 
tian. 

The  Sense  in  which  the  Fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  Believers  are 
called   Grood. 

3.  Although  no  work  even  of  the  true  people  of  God,  while 
they  continue  in  this  world,  is  absolutely  perfect,  nevertheless 
those  inward  exercises  and  outward  acts  which  are  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit  are  properly  designated  good,  and  are  so  called  in 
Scripture.  Acts  ix.  36,  it  was  said  of  Dorcas  that  she  "  was 
full  of  good  works."  Ephesians  ii.  10,  believers  are  said  to  be 
"  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  2  Timothy  iii.  17, 
teaches  that  the  man  of  God  should  be  "  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works."  Titus  ii.  14,  Christ  gave  Himself  for  us 
that  He  might  "  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of 
good  works."  There  is  no  contradiction  in  pronouncmg  the  same 
work  good  and  bad,  because  these  terms  are  relative,  and  the  re- 
lations intended  may  be  different.  Feeding  the  poor,  viewed  in 
relation  to  the  nature  of  the  act,  is  a  good  work.     Viewed  in  re- 


§4.]  GOOD   WORKS.  237 

lation  to  the  motive  wliich  prompts  it,  it  may  be  good  or  Lad.  If 
done  to  be  seen  of  men,  it  is  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God.  If 
done  from  natural  benevolence,  it  is  an  act  of  ordinary  morality. 
If  done  to  a  disciple  in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  it  is  an  act  of 
Christian  virtue.  The  works  of  the  children  of  God,  therefore, 
although  stained  by  sin,  are  truly  and  properly  good,  because, 
(1.)  They  are,  as  to  their  nature  or  the  thing  done,  commanded 
by  God.  (2.)  Because,  as  to  the  motive,  they  are  the  fruits,  not 
merely  of  right  moral  feeling,  but  of  religious  feehng,  {.  e.,  of  love 
to  God ;  and  (3.)  Because  they  are  performed  with  the  purpose 
of  complying  "with  his  will,  of  honouring  Cluist  and  of  promoting 
the  interests  of  his  kingdom. 

It  follows  from  the  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  that 
no  work  can  be  regarded  as  good  or  obligatory  on  the  conscience 
which  the  Scriptures  do  not  enjoin.  Of  course  it  is  not  meant  that 
the  Bible  commands  in  detail  everything  which  the  people  of  God 
are  bound  to  do,  but  it  prescribes  the  principles  by  which  their 
conduct  is  to  be  regulated,  and  specifies  the  kind  of  acts  which 
those  principles  require  or  forbid.  It  is  enough  that  the  Scrip- 
tures require  children  to  obey  their  parents,  citizens  the  magis- 
trate, and  believers  to  hear  the  Church,  without  enjoining  every 
act  which  these  injunctions  render  obligatory.  In  giving  these 
general  commands,  the  Bible  gives  all  necessary  limitations,  so 
that  neither  parents,  magistrates,  nor  Church  can  claim  any  au- 
thority not  granted  to  them  by  God,  nor  impose  anything  on  the 
conscience  which  He  does  not  command.  As  some  churches  have 
enjoined  a  multitude  of  doctrines  as  articles  of  faith,  which  are  > 
not  taught  in  Scripture,  so  they  have  enjoined  a  multitude  of  acts,  | 
which  the  Bible  neither  directly,  nor  by  just  or  necessary  infer-  j 
ence  requires.  They  have  thus  imposed  upon  those  who  recognize  ' 
their  authority  as  infallible  in  teaching,  a  yoke  of  bondage  which 
no  one  is  able  to  bear.  After  the  example  of  the  ancient  Phari- 
sees, they  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,  and 
claim  divine  authority  for  human  institutions.  From  this  bond- 
age it  was  one  great  design  of  the  Reformation  to  free  the  peo- 
ple of  God.  This  deliverance  was  effected  by  proclaimmg  the 
principle  that  nothing  is  sin  but  what  the  Bible  forbids,  and  noth- 
ing is  morally  obligatory  but  what  the  Bible  enjoins. 

Such,  however,  is  the  disposition,  on  the  one  hand,  to  usurp 
authority,  and,  on  the  other,  to  yield  to  it,  that  it  is  only  by  the 
constant  assertion  and  vindication  of  this  principle,  that  the  lib- 
erty wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free  can  be  preserved. 


238  PART  in.    Cn.   XVm.  —  SANCTIFICATION. 

§  5.  Necessity  of  Crood  Works. 

On  this  subject  tliere  has  never  been  any  real  difference  of 
opinion  among  Protestants,  although  there  was  in  the  early 
Lutheran  Church  some  misunderstanding.  First.  It  was  univer- 
sall}^  admitted  that  good  works  are  not  necessary  to  our  justifica- 
tion ;  that  they  are  consequences  and  indirectly  the  fruits  of 
justification,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  its  ground.  Secondly,  it 
was  also  agreed  that  faith,  by  which  the  sinner  is  justified,  is  not 
as  a  work,  the  reason  why  God  pronounces  the  simier  just.  It 
is  the  act  by  which  the  sinner  receives  and  rests  upon  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  the  imputation  of  which  renders  him  righteous 
in  the  sight  of  God.  Thirdly,  faith  does  not  justify  because  it 
includes,  or  is  the  root  or  principle  of  good  works ;  not  as  "  fides 
obsequiosa."  Fourthly,  it  was  agreed  that  it  is  only  a  living 
faith,  ^.  e.,  a  faith  which  works  by  love  and  purifies  the  heart, 
that  unites  the  soul  to  Christ  and  secures  our  reconciliation  with 
God.  Fifthly,  it  was  universally  admitted  that  an  immoral  life  is 
inconsistent  with  a  state  of  grace ;  that  those  who  wilfully  con- 
tinue in  tlie  practice  of  sin  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  Protestants  while  rejecting  the  Romish  doctrine  of  subject- 
ive justification,  strenuously  insisted  that  no  man  is  delivered 
from  the  guilt  of  sin  who  is  not  delivered  from  its  reigning 
power ;  that  sanctification  is  inseparable  from  justification,  and 
that  the  one  is  just  as  essential  as  the  other. 

The  controversy  on  this  subject  was  due  mainly  to  a  misun- 
derstanding, but  in  a  measure  also  to  a  real  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  office  of  the  law  under  the  Gospel.  Melancthon  taught 
that  repentance  was  the  effect  of  the  law  and  anterior  to  faith, 
and  used  forms  of  expression  which  were  thought  to  imply  that 
good  works,  or  sanctification,  although  not  the  ground  of  justifi- 
cation, were  nevertheless  a  "  causa  sine  qua  non  "  of  our  accept- 
ance with  God.  To  this  Luther  objected,  as  true  sanctification 
is  the  consequence,  and  in  no  sense  the  condition  of  the  sinner's 
justification.  We  are  not  justified  because  we  are  holy  ;  but 
being  justified,  we  are  rendered  holy.  Agricola  (born  in  Eisle- 
ben,  1492,  died  1566),  a  pupil  of  Luther,  and  greatly  influential 
as  a  preacher,  took  extreme  ground  against  Melancthon.  He 
not  only  held  that  repentance  was  not  due  to  the  operation  of  the 
law,  and  was  the  fruit  of  faith,  but  also  that  the  law  should  not 
be  taught  under  the  Gospel,  and  that  good  works  are  not  neces- 
sary to  salvation.     The  believer  is  entirely  free  from  the  law : 


§6-] 


NECESSITY    OF   GOOD   WORKS.  239 


is  not  under  the  law  but  under  grace ;  and  being  accepted  for 
what  Christ  did,  it  is  of  little  consequence  what  he  does.  Luther 
denounced  this  perversion  of  the  Gospel,  which  overlooked  en- 
tirely the  distinction  between  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works 
demanding  perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  justification,  and 
the  law  as  the  revelation  of  the  immutable  will  of  God  as  to 
what  rational  creatures  should  be  and  do  in  character  and  con- 
duct. He  insisted  that  faith  was  the  receiving  of  Christ,  not 
only  for  the  pardon  of  sin,  but  also  as  a  saviour  from  its  power ; 
that  its  object  was  not  merely  the  death,  but  also  the  obedience 
of  Christ.i 

The  controversy  was  renewed  not  long  after  in  another  form, 
in  consequence  of  the  position  taken  by  George  Major,  also  a 
pupil  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  and  for  some  years  professor 
of  theology  and  preacher  at  Wittenberg.  He  was  accused  of  ob- 
jecting to  the  proposition  "  we  are  saved  by  faith  alone  "  and  of 
teaching  that  good  works  Avere  also  necessary  to  salvation.  This 
was  understood  as  tantamount  to  saying  that  good  works  are 
necessary  to  justification.  Major,  indeed,  denied  the  justice  of 
this  charge.  He  said  he  did  not  teach  that  good  works  were 
necessary  as  being  meritorious,  but  simply  as  the  necessary  fruits 
of  faith  and  part  of  our  obedience  to  Christ ;  nevertheless,  he 
maintained  that  no  one  could  be  saved  without  good  works. 
How  then  can  infants  be  saved  ?  And  how  can  this  uncondi- 
tional necessity  of  good  works  be  consistent  with  Paul's  doctrine 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  without  works  ?  Whom  God  jus- 
tifies He  glorifies.  Justification  secures  salvation  ;  and,  therefore, 
if  faith  alone,  or  faith  without  works,  secures  justification,  it  se- 
cures salvation.  It  is  very  evident  that  this  was  a  dispute  about 
words.  Major  admitted  that  the  sinner  was  in  a  state  of  salva- 
tion the  moment  he  believed,  but  held  that  if  his  faith  did  not  ft 
produce  good  works  it  was  not  a  saving  faith.  In  his  sermon  ^  On  V 
the  Conversion  of  Paul,"  he  said:  "  As  thou  art  now  justified  by 
faith  alone,  and  hast  become  a  child  of  God,  and  since  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  through  that  faith  dwell  in  thy  heart,  so 
are  good  works  necessary,  not  to  obtain  salvation  (which  thou 
already  hast  as  a  matter  of  grace,  Avithout  works,  through  laith 
alone  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ),  but  to  hold  fast  your  salvation, 
that  it  be  not  lost,  and  also  because  if  thou  dost  not  produce 
good  works,  it  is  an  evidence  that  thy  faith  is  false  and  dead,  a 
mere  pretence  or  opinion."     Amsdorf,  the  chief   representative 

1  See  Dorner,  Geschichte  der  pi-utestantischen  Theologie,  Munich,  18G7,  pp.  3-56-34:4. 


240  PART  m.    Ch.  xvin.  —  sanctification. 

of  the  extremists  in  tliis  controversy,  laid  down  his  doctrine  in 
the  following  propositions :  (1.)  Etsi  hsec  oratio :  bona  opera 
sunt  necessaria  ad  salutem  in  doctrina  legis  abstractive  et  de  idea 
tolerari  potest,  tamen  multae  sunt  graves  causse,  propter  quas 
vitanda,  et  fugienda  est  non  minus,  quam  hasc  oratio :  Cluistus 
est  creatura.  (2.)  In  foro  justificationis  hsec  propositio  nullo 
modo  ferenda  est.  (3.)  In  foro  novse  obedientias  post  reconcili- 
ationem  nequaquam  bona  opera  ad  salutem,  sed  propter  alias 
causas  necessaria  sunt.  (4.)  Sola  fides  justificat  in  principio, 
medio,  et  fine.  (5.)  Bona  opera  non  sunt  necessaria  ad  retinen- 
dam  salutem.  (6.)  Synonyma  sunt  et  sequipollentia,  sen  ter- 
mini convertibiles,  justificatio  et  salvatio,  nee  uUa  ratione  distrahi 
aut  possunt  aut  debent.  (7.)  Explodatur  ergo  ex  ecclesia  co- 
thurnus papisticus  propter  scandala  multiplicia,  dissensiones  innu- 
merabiles  et  alias  causas,  de  quibus  Apostoli  Act.  xv.  loquuntur." 

The  "  Form  of  Concord,"  in  which  this  and  other  controversies 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  were  finally  adjusted,  took  the  true 
ground  on  this  subject,  midway  between  the  two  extreme  views. 
It  rejects  the  unqualified  proposition  that  good  works  are  necessary 
to  salvation,  as  men  may  be  saved  who  have  no  oj)portumty  to 
testify  to  their  faith  by  their  works.  On  the  other  hand,  it  utterly 
condemns  the  unwarrantable  declaration  that  good  works  are  hvu't- 
ful  to  salvation ;  wliich  it  pronounces  to  be  pernicious  and  full  of 
scandal.  It  teaches  that  "  Fides  vera  nunquam  sola  est,  quin  car- 
itatem  et  spem  semper  secum  habeat."  ^ 

The  same  doctrine  was  clearly  taught  in  the  Lutheran  Symbols 
from  the  beginning,  so  that  the  charge  made  by  Romanists,  that 
Protestants  divorced  morality  from  rehgion,  was  without  founda- 
tion, either  in  their  doctrine  or  practice.  In  the  "  Apology  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession  "  it  is  said :  "  Quia  fides  affert  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  et  parit  novam  vitam  in  cordibus,  necesse  est,  quod  pa- 
riat  spirituales  motus  in  cordibus.  Et  qui  sintilli  motus,  ostendit 
proplieta,  cum  ait :  '  Dabo  legem  meam  in  corda  eorum.'  Post- 
quam  igitur  fide  justificati  et  renati  sumus,  incipimus  Denm 
timere,  diligere,  petere,  et  expectare  ab  eo  auxihum In- 
cipimus et  diligere  proximos,  quia  corda  habent  spirituales  et 
sanctos  motus.  Hiec  non  possunt  fieri,  nisi  postquam  fide  justi- 
ficati sumus  et  renati  accipimus  Spiritum  Sanctum Pro- 

fitemur  igitur,  quod  necesse  est,  inchoari  in  nobis  et  subinde 
magis  magisque  fieri  legem.  Et  complectimur  simul  utrumque, 
videhcet  spirituales  motus  et  externa  bona  opera.     Falso  igitut 

1  Hjntvme,  iii.  xi. ;  Hase,  Libri  Hymbolici,  3d  edit.  1846,  p.  586. 


§  6.]  RELATION    OF   GOOD   WORKS    TO  REWARD.  241 

caliimniantur  nos  adversarii,  quod  nostri  non  doceant  bona  opera, 
cum  ea  non  solum  requirant,  sed  etiam  ostendant,  quomodo  fieri 
possint."^ 

Antinojnianism. 

Antinomianism  has  never  had  any  hold  in  the  churches  of  the 
Reformation.  There  is  no  logical  connection  between  the  neglect 
of  moral  duties,  and  the  system  which  teaches  that  Christ  is  a 
Savdour  as  well  from  the  power  as  from  the  penalty  of  sin ;  that 
faith  is  the  act  by  which  the  soul  receives  and  rests  on  Him  for 
sanctification  as  well  as  for  justification  ;  and  that  such  is  the  na- 
ture of  the  union  with  Christ  by  faith  and  indwelling  of  the  Spirit, 
that  no  one  is,  or  can  be  partaker  of  the  benefit  of  his  death,  who 
is  not  also  partaker  of  the  power  of  his  life  ;  which  holds  to  the 
divine  authority  of  the  Scripture  which  declares  that  without 
hoHness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  (Heb.  xii.  14)  ;  and  which,  in 
the  language  of  the  great  advocate  of  salvation  by  grace,  warns  all 
who  call  themselves  Christians  :  "  Be  not  deceived  :  neither  for- 
nicators, nor  idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers 
of  themselves  with  mankind,  nor  tliieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunk- 
ards, nor  revilers,  nor  extortioners  shall  inlierit  the  kingdom  of 
God."  (1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10.)  It  is  not  the  system  which  regards 
sin  as  so  great  an  evil  that  it  requires  the  blood  of  the  Son  of 
God  for  i-ts  expiation,  and  the  laAV  as  so  immutable  that  it  re- 
quires the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ  for  the  sinner's  justifica- 
tion, which  leads  to  loose  views  of  moral  obligation  ;  these  are 
reached  by  the  system  which  teaches  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
have  been  lowered,  that  they  can  be  more  than  met  by  the  im- 
perfect obedience  of  fallen  men,  and  that  sin  can  be  pardoned 
by  priestly  intervention.  This  is  what  logic  and  history  alike 
teach. 

§  6.  Relation  of  Crood  Works  to  Reward. 

Romish  Doctrine. 

On  this  subject  the  Romanists  make  a  distinction  between 
works  done  before,  and  those  done  after  regeneration.  Works  as 
to  the  matter  of  them  good,  when  performed  from  mere  natural 
conscience,  have  no  other  merit  than  that  of  congruity.  They  are 
necessarily  imperfect,  and  constitute  no  claim  on  the  justice  of 
God.  But  works  performed  under  the  control  of  gracious  prin- 
ciples infused  in  baptism,  are  perfect ;  they  have  therefore  real 
merit,  i.  e.,  the  merit  of  condignity.     They  give  a  claim  for  re- 

1  III.  iv.,  v.,  XV.;  Hase,  pp.  83,  85. 
>oL.  III.  16 


242  TART  m.     Ch.   XVIII.  — SANCTIFICATION. 

ward,  not  merely  on  tlie  ground  of  the  divine  promise,  but  also  of 
the  divine  justice.  To  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not  reck- 
oned of  grace,  but  of  debt.  (Rom.  iv.  4.)  On  this  subject  the 
Council  of  Trent,^  says :  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  hominis  justificati 
bona  opera  ita  esse  dona  Dei,  ut  non  sint  etiam  bona  ipsius  jus- 
tificati merita  ;  aut  ipsum  justificatum  bonis  operibus,  quse  ab  eo 
per  Dei  gratiam,  et  Jesu  Christi  meritum  cujus  vivum  membrum 
est,  fiunt,  non  vere  mereri  augmentum  gratiae,  vitam  seternam, 
et  ipsius  vitae  aaternae,  si  tamen  in  gratia  decesserit,  consecutio- 
nem,  atque  etiam  glorite  augmentum  ;  anathema  sit."  Bellar- 
min  ^  says  :  "■  Habet  communis  catholicorum  omnium  sententia, 
opera  bona  justorum  vere,  ac  proprie  esse  merita,  et  merita  non 
cujuscunqvie  premii,  sed  ipsius  vitae  a^ternae." 

The  conditions  of  such  meritorious  works,  according  to  Bel- 
larmin,  are:  (1.)  That  they  be  good  in  their  nature.  (2.)  Done  in 
obedience  to  God.  (3.)  By  a  nian  in  this  life.  (4.)  That  they  be 
voluntary.  (5.)  That  the  agent  be  in  a  state  of  justification  and 
favour  with  God.  (6.)  That  they  be  prompted  by  love.  (7.)  That 
some  divine  promise  be  attached  to  them. 

Refutation    of  this  Romish  Doctrine. 

1.  This  whole  doctrine  of  merit  is  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  justification,  their  term  for  regeneration,  removes  everytliing 
of  the  nature  of  sin  from  the  soul ;  that  works  performed  by  the 
renewed  being  free  from  sin  are  perfect ;  that  a  renewed  man 
can  not  only  fulfil  all  the  demands  of  the  law,  but  also  do  more 
than  the  law  requires.  As  these  assumptions  are  contrary  to 
Scripture,  and  to  the  experience  of  all  Christians,  the  doctrine 
founded  on  them  must  be  false. 

2.  The  doctrine  is  inconsistent,  not  only  with  the  express  decla- 
rations of  the  word  of  God,  but  also  with  the  whole  nature  and 
design  of  the  Gospel.  The  immediate  or  proximate  design  of  the 
plan  of  salvation,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly  teach,  is  the  man- 
ifestation of  the  grace  of  God,  and  therefore  it  must  be  gratuitous 
in  all  its  parts  and  provisions,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  all  merit. 
Unless  salvation  be  of  grace  it  is  not  a  revelation  of  grace,  and  if 
of  grace  it  is  not  of  works. 

3.  The  doctrine  is  so  repugnant  to  the  inward  teachings  of  the 
Spirit,  as  well  as  to  the  teachings  of  his  word,  that  it  cannot  be 
practically  believed  even  by  those  Avho  profess  it.     The  children 

1  Sess.  vi.  canon  32;  Streitwolf,  Lihri  SymboUd,  GottinRen,  1846,  vol.  i.  p.  37. 

2  Dt  Justificatione,  v.  i. ;  Disjmtationes,  edit.  Taris,  1G08,  vol.  iv.  p.  949,  a. 


§6.]  RELATION   0¥   GOOD  WORKS   TO   REWARD.  243 

of  God,  in  spite  of  tlieir  theories  and  their  creeds,  do  not  trust 
for  tlieir  salvation,  either  in  wliole  or  in  part,  to  what  tliey  are  or 
to  what  they  do  ;  but  simply  and  exclusively  to  what  Christ  is  and 
has  done  for  them.  In  proof  of  this,  appeal  may  be  made  to  the 
written  or  recorded  experience  of  all  the  great  lights  of  the  Latin 
Church.  If  every  Christian  is  intimately  convinced  that  he  is 
unholy  in  the  sight  of  God ;  that  all  his  best  acts  are  polluted  ; 
and  that  in  no  one  thing  and  at  no  time  does  he  come  up  to  the 
standard  of  perfection ;  it  is  impossible  that  he  can  believe  that 
he   merits  eternal  life  on  the  ground  of  his  own  works. 

4.  As  the  doctrine  of  merit  is  opposed  to  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  Gospel,  and  to  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture  that 
we  are  not  justified  or  saved  by  works,  but  gratuitously  for 
Christ's  sake,  so  it  is  derogatory'-  to  the  honour  of  Christ  as  our 
Saviour.  He  gave  Himself  as  a  ransom ;  he  offered  Himself  as  a 
sacrifice  ;  it  is  by  his  obedience  we  are  constituted  righteous  ;  it  is, 
therefore,  only  on  the  assumptioii  that  his  ransom,  sacrifice,  and 
obedience  are  inadequate  that  the  merit  of  our  works  can  be 
needed  or  admitted.  The  Romanists  attempt  to  evade  the  force 
of  this  objection  by  saying  that  we  owe  to  Christ  the  grace  or 
spiritual  life  by  which  we  perform  good  works.  Had  He  not  died 
for  our  sins,  God  would  not  in  baptism  wash  away  our  guilt  and 
pollution  and  impart  those  "habits  of  grace"  by  which  we  are 
enabled  to  merit  eternal  hfe.  This  does  not  help  the  matter ;  for 
salvation  rem,ains  a  debt  as  a  matter  of  justice  on  the  ground  of 
our  good  works.  It  is  this  which  is  so  contrary  to  Scripture,  to 
the  intimate  conviction  of  every  Christian,  and  to  the  glory  of 
Christ,  to  whom  the  whole  honour  of  our  salvation  is  due. 

Doctrine  of  the  older  Protestant  Divines. 

The  older  theologians,  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  refute 
the  doctrine  of  merit,  assumed  that  a  work,  to  be  meritorious, 
must  be  (1.)  "  Indebitum,"  i.  e.,  not  due.  Something  which 
^e  are  not  bound  to  do.  (2.)  Our  own.  (3.)  Absolutely  per- 
fect. (4.)  Equal,  or  bearing  a  due  proportion  to  the  recompense. 
(5.)  And,  therefore,  that  the  recompense  should  be  due  on  the 
ground  of  justice,  and  not  merely  of  promise  or  agreement.  On 
these  conditions,  all  merit  on  the  part  of  creatures  is  impossible. 
It  is,  however,  clearly  recognized  in  Scripture  that  a  laboiu-er  is 
worthy  of  his  hire.  To  him  that  worketh,  says  the  Apostle,  the 
reward  is  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.  It  is  something  due 
in  justice.     This  principle  also  is  universally  recognized  among 


241  PART  m.   Ch.  xvm.  —  sanctification. 

men.  Even  on  the  theory  of  slavery,  where  the  labourer  himself, 
his  time,  and  strength,  and  all  he  has,  are  assumed  to  belong  to 
his  master,  the  servant  has  a  claim  to  a  proper  recompense,  which 
it  would  be  unjust  to  withhold  from  him.  And  in  every  depart- 
ment of  life  it  is  recognized  as  a  simple  matter  of  justice,  that  the 
man  Avho  performs  a  stipulated  work,  earns  his  Avages.  The  pay- 
ment is  not  a  matter  of  favour  ;  it  is  not  due  simply  because  prom- 
ised ;  but  because  it  has  been  earned.  It  is  a  debt.  So  in  the  case 
of  Adam,  had  he  remained  perfect,  there  would  have  been  no 
ground  in  justice  why  he  should  die,  or  forfeit  the  favour  of  God  ; 
which  favour  is  life. 

The  passage  in  Luke  xvii.  10,  is  relied  upon  as  proving  that  a 
creature  can  in  no  case  perform  a  meritorious  act,  ^.  e.,  an  act 
which  lays  a  claim  in  justice  for  a  rcAvard.  Our  Lord  there  says, 
"  When  ye  shall  have  done  all  those  things  which  are  commanded 
you,  say,  '  We  are  unprofitable  servants :  we  have  done  that 
which  Avas  our  duty  to  do.'  "  This  does  not  teach  that  the  la- 
bourer is  not  worthy  of  his  hire.  The  passage  is  part  of  a  par- 
able in  AA'hich  our  Lord  says,  that  a  master  does  not  thank  his  ser- 
vant for  merely  doing  his  duty.  It  does  not  call  for  gratitude. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  it  would  be  just  to  withhold  the  ser- 
vant's wages,  or  to  refuse  to  allow  him  to  eat  and  drink.  God 
is  just,  and  being  just.  He  rcAvards  every  man  according  to  his 
works,  so  long  as  men  are  under  the  laAV.  If  not  under  the  law, 
they  are  dealt  with,  not  on  the  principles  of  laAv,  but  of  grace. 

But  although  Protestants  deny  the  merit  of  good  Avorks,  and 
teach  that  sah^ation  is  entirely  gratuitous,  that  the  remission  of 
sins,  adoption  into  tlie  family  of  God,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  granted  to  the  believer,  as  well  as  admission  into 
heaven,  solely  on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  they  nevertheless  teach  that  God  does  rcAvard  his  people 
for  their  Avorks.  Having  graciously  promised  for  Christ's  sake  to 
overlook  the  imperfection  of  their  best  services,  they  have  the 
assurance  founded  on  that  promise  that  he  who  gives  to  a  disciple 
even  a  cup  of  cold  Avater  in  the  name  of  a  discijjle,  shall  in  no 
wise  lose  his  rcAvard.  The  Scriptures  also  teach  that  the  happi- 
ness or  blessedness  of  believers  in  a  future  hfe,  will  be  greater 
or  less  in  proportion  to  their  devotion  to  the  service  of  Christ  in 
this  life.  Those  who  love  little,  do  little  ;  and  those  Avho  do  little, 
enjoy  less.  What  a  man  soavs  that  shall  he  also  reap.  As  the 
rewards  of  heaven  are  given  on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of  Christ, 
and  as  He  has  a  right  to  do  Avhat  He  Avill  Avith  his  oavti,  there 


§  7.]  PERFECTIONISM.  '  245 

would  be  no  injustice  were  the  thief  saved  on  the  cross  as  highly 
exalted  as  the  Apostle  Paul.  But  the  general  drift  of  Scrip- 
ture is  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  that  a  man  shall  reap  what  he 
sows  ;  that  God  will  reward  every  one  according  to,  although  not 
on  account  of  his  works. 

§  7.  Perfectionism. 
Protestant  Doctrine. 

The   doctrine   of    Lutherans   and   Reformed,   the    two  great    | 
branches  of  the  Protestant  Church,  is,  that  sanctification  is  never 
perfected  in  this  life ;  that  sin  is  not  in  any  case  entirely  sub- 
dued ;  so  that  the  most  advanced  believer  has  need  as  long  as  he 
continues  in  the  flesh,  daily  to  pray  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

The  question  is  not  as  to  the  duty  of  believers.  All  admit  that 
we  are  bound  to  be  perfect  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect. 
Nor  is  it  a  question  as  to  the  command  of  God ;  for  the  first, 
original,  and  universally  obligatory  commandment  is  that  we 
should  love  God  with  all  our  heart  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves. 
Nor  does  the  question  concern  the  pre;) visions  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  ' 
admitted  that  the  Gospel  provides  all  that  is  needed  for  the  com- 
plete sanctification  and  salvation  of  believers.  What  can  we 
need  more  than  we  have  in  Christ,  his  Spirit,  his  word  and  his 
ordinances  ?  Nor  does  it  concern  the  promises  of  God  ;  for  all 
rejoice  in  the  hope,  founded  on  the  divine  promise,  that  we  shall 
be  ultimately  delivered  from  all  sin.  God  has  in  Christ  made 
provision  for  the  complete  salvation  of  his  people :  that  is,  for 
their  entire  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law,  from  the 
_  pojiggy  of.  .sixL.  from  all  sorrow,  pain,  and  death  ;  and  not  only  for 
mere  negative  deliverance,  but  for  their  being  transformed  into 
the  image  of  Christ,  filled  with  his  Spirit,  and  glorified  by  the 
beauty  of  the  Lord.  It  is,  however,  too  plain  that,  unless  sanctifi- 
cation be  an  exception,  no  one  of  these  promises  besides  that 
which  concerns  justification,  is  perfectly  fulfilled  in  this  life. 
Justification  does  not  admit  of  degrees.  A  man  either  is  under 
condemnation,  or  he  is  not.  And,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  justification  is  instantaneous  and  complete,  as  soon  as  tho 
sinner  believes.  But  the  question  is,  whether,  when  God  prom-  \ 
ises  to  make  his  people  perfectly  holy,  perfectly  happy,  and  per- 
fectly glorious.  He  thereby  promises  to  make  them  perfect  in 
hohness  in  this  life  ?  If  the  promises  of  happiness  and  glory  are 
not  perfectly  fulfilled   in   this   life,  why  should  the  promise  of 


246  PART  in.   ch.  xvm.  —  sanctification. 

sanctification  be  thus  fulfilled  ?  It  is,  however,  a  mere  question 
of  fact.  All  admit  that  God  can  render  his  people  perfect  before 
death  as  well  as  after  it.  The  only  question  is.  Has  He  promised, 
with  regard  to  sanctification  alone,  that  it  shall  1><'  }H'rl'ceted  on 
this  side  of  the  grave  ?  and.  Do  we  see  cases  in  Avhicli  the  prom- 
ise has  been  actually  fulfilled  ?  The  answer  given  to  these  ques- 
tions by  the  Church  universal  is  in  the  negative.  So  long  as  the 
believer  is  in  this  world,  he  will  need  to  pray  for  pardon. 
The  grounds  of  this  doctrine  are,  — 

1.  The  spirituality  of  the  divine  law  and  the  immutability 
of  its  demands.  It  condemns  as  sinful  any  want  of  conformity  to 
the  standai'd  of  absolute  perfection  as  exhibited  in  the  Bible. 
Anything  less  than  loving  God  constantly  with  all  the  heart,  all 
the  soul,  all  the  mind,  and  all  the  strength,  and  our  neighbour  as 
ourselves,  is  sin. 

2.  The  express  declaration  of  Scripture  that  all  men  are  sin- 
ners. This  does  not  mean  simply  that  all  men  have  sinned,  that 
all  are  guilty,  but  that  all  have  sin  cleaving  to  them.  "  If,"  de- 
clares the  Apostle,  "  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  (1  John  i.  8.)  As  the 
wise  man  had  said  before  him,  "  There  is  not  a  just  man  upon 
earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not."  (Eccles.  vii.  20.) 
And  in  1  Kings  viii.  46,  it  is  said,  "  There  is  no  man  that  sin- 
neth not."  And  the  Apostle  James,  iii.  2,  says  :  "  In  many 
things  we  offend  all."  It  is  a  manifest  perversion  of  the  simple 
grammatical  meaning  of  the  words  to  make  d/xaprtav  ovk  l^o/xev  to 
refer  to  the  past.  The  verb  is  in  the  present  tense.  The  truth 
is  not  in  us,  says  the  Apostle,  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  i.  e.,  that 
we  are  not  now  polluted  by  sin.  In  the  context  he  sets  forth 
Christ  as  the  "  Word  of  Life,"  as  having  hfe  in  HimseK,  and  as 
being  the  source  of  life  to  us.  Having  fellowship  with  Him, 
we  have  fellowship  with  God.  But  God  is  light,  i.  e.,  is  pm-e, 
holy,  and  blessed ;  if,  therefore,  we  walk  in  darkness,  i.  e.,  in  igno- 
rance and  sin,  we  can  have  no  fellowship  with  Him.  But  if  we 
walk  in  the  light,  as  He  is  in  the  light,  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  and  do  not 
need  now  and  at  all  times  the  cleansing  power  of  Clmst's  blood, 
we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us. 

Argument  from  the  G-eneral  Representations  of  Scripture. 

The  declarations  of  Scripture,  which  are  so  abundant,  that 
there   is  none  righteous,  no  not  one  ;  that  all  have  sinned  and 


§7.] 


PERFECTIONISM.  247 


come  short  of  the  glory  of  God ;  that  no  flesh  living  is  just  in  the 
sight  of  God ;  and  that  every  one  must  lay  his  hand  upon  his 
mouth,  and  his  mouth  in  the  dust  in  the  sight  of  the  infinitely 
holy  God,  who  accuses  his  angels  of  folly,  refer  to  all  men  with- 
out exception  ;  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  to  the  renewed  and  unre- 
newed ;  to  babes  in  Christ  and  to  mature  Christians.  All  feel, 
and  all  are  bound  to  acknowledge  that  they  are  sinners  whenever 
they  present  themselves  before  God  ;  all  know  that  they  need 
constantly  the  intervention  of  Christ,  and  the  application  of  his 
blood,  to  secure  fellowship  with  the  Holy  One.  As  portrayed  in 
Scripture,  the  inward  life  of  the  people  of  God  to  the  end  of  their 
course  in  this  world,  is  a  repetition  of  conversion.  It  is  a  con- 
tinued turning  unto  God ;  a  constant  renewal  of  confession,  re- 
pentance, and  faith  ;  a  dying  unto  sin,  and  living  unto  righteous- 
ness. This  is  true  of  all  the  saints,  patriarchs,  prophets,  and 
apostles  of  whose  inward  experience  the  Bible  gives  us  any  ac- 
count. 

Passages  which  describe  the  Conjiict  between  the  Flesh  and  the 


3.  INIore  definitely  is  this  truth  taught  in  those  passages  which 
describe  the  conflict  in  the  believer  between  the  flesh  and  the 
Spirit.  To  this  reference  has  already  been  made.  That  the 
seventh  chapter  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  an  account  of 
his  own  inward  life  at  the  time  of  writing  that  Epistle,  has  al- 
ready, as  it  is  believed,  been  sufficiently  proved  ;  and  such  has 
been  the  belief  of  the  great  body  of  evangelical  Christians  in  all 
ages  of  the  Church.  If  this  be  the  correct  interpretation  of  that 
passage,  then  it  proves  that  Paul,  at  least,  was  not  free  from  sin  ; 
that  he  had  to  contend  with  a  law  in  his  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  his  mind  ;  that  he  groaned  constantly  under 
the  burden  of  indwelling  sin.  At  a  still  later  period  of  his  life, 
when  he  was  just  ready  to  be  offered  up,  he  says  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  iii.  12-14,  "  Not  as  though  I  had  already  attained,  either 
were  already  perfect :  but  I  follow  after,  if  that  I  may  appre- 
hend that  for  which  also  I  am  apprehended  of  Christ  Jesus. 
Brethren,  I  count  not  myself  to  have  apprehended  :  but  this  one 
thing  I  do,  forgetting  those  things  which  are  behind  and  reaching 
forth  unto  those  things  which  are  before,  I  press  toward  the  mark 
for  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus."  This 
is  an  unmistakable  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  Apostle  that 
even  at  this  late  period  of  his  life  he  was  not  yet  perfect ;  he  had 


248  PART  III.     Ch.  XVIII.  —  SANCTIFICATION". 

not  attained  the  end  of  perfect  conformity  to  Christ,  but  was  press- 
ing forward,  as  one  in  a  race,  with  all  earnestness  that  he  might 
reach  the  end  of  his  calling.  To  answer  this,  as  has  been  done 
by  some  distinguished  advocates  of  perfectionism,  by  saying  that 
Paul's  not  being  perfect,  is  no  proof  that  other  men  may  not  be ; 
is  not  very  satisfactory. 

The  parallel  passage  in  Galatians,  v.  16-26,  is  addressed  to 
Christians  generally.  It  recognizes  the  fact  that  they  are  imper- 
fectly sanctified  ;  that  in  them  the  renewed  principle,  the  Spirit 
as  the  source  of  spiritual  life,  is  in  conflict  with  the  flesh,  the  re- 
mains  of  their  corrupt  nature.  It  exhorts  them  to  mortify  the 
flesh  (not  the  body,  but  their  corrupt  nature),  and  to  strive  con- 
stantly to  walk  under  the  controlling  influence  of  the  Spirit. 
'  The  characteristic  difference  between  the  unrenewed  and  the  re- 
newed is  not  that  the  former  are  entirely  sinful,  and  the  latter 
perfectly  holy ;  but  that  the  former  are  wholly  under  the  control 
of  their  fallen  nature,  while  the  latter  have  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwelling  in  them,  which  leads  them  to  crucify  the  flesh,  and  to 
strive  after  complete  conformity  to  the  image  of  God.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  character  of  the  Galatian  Christians  to  render  this 
exliortation  applicable  to  them  alone.  What  the  Scriptures 
teach  concerning  faith,  repentance,  and  justification,  is  intended 
for  all  Christians ;  and  so  what  is  taught  of  sanctification  suits 
the  case  of  all  believers.  Indeed,  if  a  man  thinks  himself  perfect, 
and  apprehends  that  he  has  already  attained  what  his  fellow  be- 
lievers are  only  striving  for,  a  great  part  of  the  Bible  must  for 
him  lose  its  value.  What  use  can  he  make  of  the  Psalms,  the 
vehicle  through  which  the  people  of  God  for  millenniums  have 
poured  out  their  hearts  ?  How  can  such  a  man  sympathize  with 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  or  any  of  the  prophets  ?  How  strange  to  him 
must  be  the  language  of  Isaiah,  "  Woe  is  me  !  for  I  am  undone ; 
because  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of 
a  people  of  unclean  lips :  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the 
LOKD  of  hosts." 

Argument  from  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
4.  Not  only  do  the  holy  men  of  God  throughout  the  Scriptures 
in  coming  into  his  presence,  come  •svith  the  confession  of  sin  and 
imperfection,  praying  for  mercy,  not  only  for  what  they  were  but 
also  for  what  they  are,  but  our  Lord  has  taught  all  his  disciples 
whenever  they  address  their  Father  in  heaven  to  say,  "  Forgive 
us  our  trespasses."     This  injunction  has  ever  been  a  stumbHng 


§  7.]  PERFECTIONISM.  249 

block  in  tlie  way  of  the  advocates  of  perfection  from  Pelagiiis  to 
the  present  day.  It  was  urged  by  Augustine  in  his  argument 
against  the  doctrine  of  his  great  opponent  that  men  coukl  be  en- 
tirely free  from  sin  in  the  present  life.  The  answer  given  to  the 
argument  from  this  source  has  been  substantially  the  same  as  that 
given  by  Pelagius.  It  is  presented  in  its  best  form  by  the  Rev. 
Richard  Watson.^  That  Avi'itej:  says,  "  (1.)  That  it  would  be 
absurd  to  suppose  that  any  person  is  placed  under  the  necessity 
of  '  trespassing,'  in  order  that  a  general  prayer  designed  for  men 
in  a  mixed  condition  might  retain  its  aptness  to  every  particular 
case.  (2.)  That  trespassing  of  every  kind  and  degree  is  not  sup- 
posed by  this  prayer  to  be  continued,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
used  always  in  the  same  import,  or  otherwise  it  might  be  pleaded 
against  the  renunciation  of  any  trespass  or  transgression  whatever. 
(3.)  That  this  petition  is  still  relevant  to  the  case  of  the  entirely 
sanctified  and  the  evangelically  perfect,  since  neitlier  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  first  man  nor  that  of  angels  is  in  question ;  that  is,  a 
perfection  measured  by  the  perfect  law,  which  in  its  obligations, 
contemplates  all  creatures  as  having  sustained  no  injury  by  moral 
lapse,  and  admits,  therefore,  of  no  excuse  from  infirmities  and 
mistakes  of  judgment ;  nor  of  any  degree  of  obedience  below  that 
which  beings  created  naturally  perfect,  were  capable  of  rendering. 
There  may,  however,  be  an  entire  sanctification  of  a  being  ren- 
dered naturally  weak  and  imperfect,  and  so  liable  to  mistake  and 
infirmity,  as  well  as  to  defect  as  to  the  degree  of  that  absolute 
obedience  and  service  which  the  law  of  God,  never  bent  to  human 
weakness,  demands  from  all.  These  defects,  and  mistakes,  and 
infirmities,  may  be  quite  consistent  with  the  entire  sanctification 
of  the  soul  and  the  moral  maturity  of  a  being  still  naturally  in- 
firm and  imperfect." 

The  first  and  second  of  these  answers  do  not  touch  the  pdnt. 
No  one  pretends  that  men  are  placed  under  the  necessity  of  sin- 
ning, "  in  order  that  "  they  may  be  able  to  repeat  the  Lord's 
prayer.  This  would  indeed  be  absurd.  The  argument  is  this.  If 
a  man  prays  to  be  forgiven,  he  confesses  that  he  is  a  sinner,  and 
if  a  sinner,  he  is  not  free  from  sin  or  perfect.  And  therefore, 
the  use  of  the  Lord's  prayer  by  all  Christians,  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  no  Christian  in  this  life  is  perfect.  The  third  answer, 
which  is  the  one  principally  relied  upon  and  constantly  repeated,  , 
involves  a  contradiction.  It  assumes  that  what  is  not  sin  requires  f 
to  be  forgiven.     Mr.  Watson  says  the  petition,  "  Forgive  us  our  y 

1  Theological  Institutes,  ii.  xxix. ;  edit.  New  York,  1832,  p.  545- 


250  PART  m.   Ch.  xvni.  —  sanctification. 

trespasses,"  may  be  properly  used  by  those  who  are  fiee  from 
sin.  This  is  saying  that  sin  is  not  sin.  The  argument  by  which 
this  position  is  sustained  also  involves  a  contradiction.  Our  "  in- 
firmities "  are  sins  if  judged  by  "  the  perfect  law  "  ;  but  not  if 
judged  by  "  the  evangelical  law."  As  we  are  not  to  be  judged 
by  the  former,  but  by  the  latter,  want  of  conformity  to  the  law 
is  not  sin.  The  only  inability  under  which  men,  since  the  fall, 
labour,  arises  from  their  sinfulness,  and  therefore  is  no  excuse  for 
want  of  conformity  to  that  law  which  it  is  said,  and  said  rightly, 
is  ^^jieyer_bentjpjmiiaa»--w«akness." 

Argument  from  the  Experience  of  Christians. 

5.  Appeal  may  be  made  on  this  subject  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Church  universal.  There  are  no  forms  of  worship,  no  formulas 
for  private  devotion,  in  any  age  or  part  of  the  Church,  which  do 
not  contain  confession  of  sin  and  prayer  for  forgiveness.  The 
whole  Christian  Church  with  all  its  members  prostrates  itself  be- 
fore God,  saying,  "  Have  mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners."  If 
here  and  there  one  and  another  among  this  prostrate  multitude 
refuse  to  bow  and  join  in  this  confession,  they  are  to  be  wondered 
at  and  pitied.  They  are,  however,  not  to  be  found.  Conscious- 
ness is  too  strong  for  theory,  and  therefore, 

6.  We  may  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  every  believer.  He 
knows  that  he  is  a  sinner.  He  never  is  in  a  state  which  satisfies 
his  own  conviction  as  to  what  he  ought  to  be.  He  may  call  his 
deficiencies  infirmities,  weaknesses,  and  errors,  and  may  refuse 
to  call  them  sins.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  case.  Whatever 
they  are  called,  it  is  admitted  that  they  need  God's  pardoning 
mercy. 

§  8.  Theories  of  Perfectionism, 
Pelagian  Theory. 

The  two  radical  principles  of  Pelagianism  are,  first,  that  the 
nature  of  man  is  uninjured  by  the  fall,  so  that  men  are  free  from 
sin  until  by  voluntary  transgression  they  incur  guilt.  Secondly, 
that  our  natural  powers,  since,  as  well  as  before  the  fall,  are  fully 
competent  to  render  complete  obedience  to  the  law. 

From  these  principles  Pelagius  inferred,  (1.)  That  a  man 
(even  among  the  heathen)  might  live  from  birth  to  death  free 
from  all  sin,  although  he  did  not  assert  that  any  man  ever  had 
so  lived.  (2.)  That  when  converted,  men  might,  and  numbers  of 
men  did,  live  without  sin  ;  perfectly  obeying  the  law.    (3.)  That 


§8.]  THEORIES   OF  PERFECTIONISM.  251 

this  obedience  was  rendered  in  the  exercise  of  their  ability,  as- 
sisted by  the  grace  of  God. 

By  grace,  Pelagius  says  that  we  are  to  understand,  (1.)  The 
goodness  of  God  in  so  constituting  our  nature  that  we  can  com- 
pletely obey  the  law  in  virtue  of  our  free  agency.  (2.)  The 
revelation,  precepts,  and  example  of  Christ.  (3.)  The  pardon 
of  sins  committed  before  conversion.  (4.)  The  moral  influences 
of  the  truth  and  of  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed. 
The  effect  of  grace  thus  understood,  is  simply  to  render  obedience 
more  easy. 

In  the  Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  418,  the  Pelagians  were 
condemned,  among  other  things,  for  teaching,  (1.)  That  the  effect 
of  grace  was  merely  to  render  obedience  more  easy.  (2.)  That 
the  declaration  of  the  Apostle  John,  "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no 
sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us,"  is,  as  to 
some,  a  mere  expression  of  humihty.  (3.)  That  the  petition  in 
the  Lord's  prayer,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses,"  is  not  suited  to 
the  saints.  They  use  it  only  as  expressing  the  desire  and  neces- 
sity of  others. 

According  to  the  Pelagian  theory,  therefore,  (1.)  The  sin 
from  which  the  believer  may  be  perfectly  free  is  the  voluntary 
transgression  of  known  law.  Nothing  else  is  of  the  nature  of  sin. 
(2.)  The  law  to  which  perfect  conformity  in  this  life  is  possible, 
and  in  many  cases  actual,  is  the  moral  law  in  all  its  strictness. 
(3.)  This  obedience  may  be  rendered  without  any  supernatural 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Romish  Theory. 

Romanists  teach,  (1.)  That  by  the  infusion  of  grace  in  justifi- 
cation as  effected  by  or  in  baptism,  everything  of  the  nature  of 
sin  is  removed  from  the  soul.  (2.)  That  good  works  performed 
in  a  state  of  grace  are  free  from  the  taint  of  sin,  and  are  perfect. 
"  Si  quis  in  quohbet  bono  opere  justum  saltern  venaliter  peccare 
dixerit  ....  anathema  sit."  ^  (3.)  That  the  law  may  be  and 
often  is,  perfectly  obeyed  by  the  children  of  God  in  this  life. 
(4.)  That  men  may  not  only  do  all  that  the  law  requires,  but 
may  even  go  beyond  its  demands.  (5.)  Nevertheless,  as  there  is 
a  higher  law  than  that  by  which  men  are  to  be  judged,  no  man 
is  entirely  free  from  venial  sins,  i.  e.,  sins  which  do  not  bring  the 
soul  under  condemnation,  and  therefore  all  men  in  this  life  have 
need  to  say,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses." 

1  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  vi.  Canon  25;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  36. 


252  PART  III.     Ch.   XYIII.-SANCTIFICATION. 

From  this  statement  it  appears,  — 

1.  That  by  sin  from  which  advanced  believers  are  said  to  be 
free,  is  meant  only  what  merits  condemnation,  and  in  itself  de- 
serves the  forfeiture  of  grace  or  divine  favour.  It  is  admitted 
that  "  concupiscence,"  or  the  remains  of  original  sin,  is  not  re- 
moved by  baptism,  but  it  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin,  in  the  sense 
just  stated.  Neither  are  venial  sins,  ^.  g.,  sins  which  do  not  for- 
feit grace,  properly  sins,  if  judged  by  the  law  under  which  believ- 
ers are  now  placed.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  negative  part  of 
perfection,  or  freedom  from  sin  is  concerned,  the  Romanists  do 
not  mean  freedom  from  moral  faults,  but  simply  freedom  from 
what  incurs  the  sentence  of  the  law.  It  is  perfection  as  judged 
by  a  lower  standard  of  judgment. 

2.  The  law  to  which  we  are  now  subject,  and  the  demands  of 
which  Romanists  say  are  satisfied  by  the  obedience  of  the  saints, 
is  not  the  moral  law  in  its  original  strictness,  but  the  smn  of  that 
whicli  is  due  from  man  in  his  present  circumstances ;  in  other 
words,  the  demands  of  the  law  are  accommodated  to  the  condi- 
tion of  men  in  this  life.  This  is  evident,  because  they  say  that 
the  saints  obey  the  law  so  far  as  it  is  now  binding,  and  because 
they  admit  that  saints  commit  venial  sins,  which  can  only  mean 
sins  which,  under  a  stricter  rule  of  judgment,  would  merit  con- 
demnation, 

3.  As  stated  above,  they  distinguish  between  the  law  and  love. 
The  former  is  that  which  all  men,  and  especially  Christians,  are 
bound  to  observe,  but  love  is  a  higher  principle  which  prompts 
to  doing  more  than  the  law  or  justice  demands.  Consequently, 
the  positive  part  of  perfection,  or  conformity  to  the  law,  does  not 
imply  the  highest  degree  of  moral  excellence  of  which  our  nature 
is  susceptible,  but  only  such  as  answers  to  the  lower  demands  of 
the  law  to  Avhich  we  are  now  subject.  In  a  passage  already 
quoted,  Bellarmin  says,  "  Defectus  charitatis,  quod  videhcet  non 
faciamus  opera  nostra  tanto  fervore  dilectionis,  quanto  faciemua 
in  patria,  defectus  quidem  est,  sed  culpa,  et  peccatum  non  est. 
Unde  etiam  charitas  nostra,  quamvis  comparata  ad  charitatem 
beatorum  sit  imperfecta,  tamen  absolute  perfecta  dici  potest."  * 
In  like  manner  Moehler  says,'-^  "  In  modern  times  the  attempt  has 
been  made  to  sustain  the  old  orthodox  doctrine  by  assuming  that 
the  moral  law  makes  ideal  demands,  which,  as  every  other  ideal, 
must  remain  unattainable.     If  this  be  true,  then  the  man  who 

1  De  Justificatione,  iv.  xvii. ;  Disputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  933,  b. 

2  SymboUk,  6th  edit.  Mainz,  1843,  p.  216. 


§8.]  THEORIES   OF   PERFECTIONISM.  253 

falls  short  of  this  ideal  is  as  little  responsible,  and  as  little  de- 
serving of  punishment,  as  an  epic  poet  who  should  fall  short  of 
the  Iliad  of  Homer." 

The  Romish  theory  is  consistent.  In  baptism  all  sin  is  washed 
away.  By  the  infusion  of  grace  full  ability  is  given  to  do  all  that 
is  required  of  us.  Nothing  can  be  required  beyond  what  we  are 
able  to  perform,  and,  therefore,  the  demands  of  the  law  are  suited 
to  our  present  state.  By  obedience  to  this  modified  law,  we  merit 
increased  supplies  of  grace  and  eternal  life. 

The  perfection,  therefore,  which  Romanists  insist  upon  is 
merely  relative  ;  not  an  entire  freedom  from  sin,  but  only  from 
such  sins  as  merit  condemnation  ;  not  hohness  which  is  absolutely 
perfect,  but  perfect  only  relatively  to  the  law  under  which  we  are 
now  placed.  It  is  clear  that  there  is  a  radical  difference  between 
Romanists  and  Protestants  as  to  the  nature  of  sin  and  the  limits 
of  moral  obligation.  If  they  were  to  adopt  our  definition  of  sin, 
they  would  not  pretend  to  any  perfection  in  the  present  life. 

The  Arminian  Theory. 

The  perfection  wliich  the  Arminians  teach  is  attainable,  and 
which,  in  many  cases,  they  say  is  actually  attained  in  this  life, 
is  declared  to  be  complete  conformity  to  the  law  ;  including  free- 
dom  fyojoi  gin,  and  tlio  proper  exercise  of  all  right  affections  and 
the  discharge  of  all  duties. 

Episcopius  defines  it  to  be,  keeping  the  commandments  of  God 
with  a  perfect  fulfilment ;  or  loving  God  as  much  as  we  ought  to 
love  Him,  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  Gospel ;  or  accord- 
ing to  the  covenant  of  grace.  "  By  a  perfection  of  degrees  is 
meant  that  highest  perfection  which  consists  in  the  highest  exer- 
tion of  human  strength  assisted  by  grace."  "  This  perfection 
includes  two  things,  (1.)  A  perfection  proportioned  to  the  powers 
of  each  individual ;  (2.)  A  desire  of  making  continual  progress, 
and  of  increasing  one's  strength  more  and  more." 

Limborch  defines  it  as  "  keeping  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel 
after  such  manner,  and  in  such  degree  of  perfection  as  God  re- 
quires of  us  under  the  denunciation  of  eternal  damnation."  This 
obedience  is  "  perfect  as  being  correspondent  to  the  stipulations 
contained  in  the  divine  covenant."  "  It  is  not  a  sinless  or  abso- 
lutely perfect  obedience,  but  such  as  consists  in  a  sincere  love  and 
habit  of  piety,  which  excludes  all  habit  of  sin,  with  all  enor- 
mous and  deliberate  actions."  ^  This  perfection  has  three  degrees 

1  Theologia  Christiana,  v.  Ixxix.  2,  8,  14;  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  pp.  658,  a,  659,  b, 
661,  a. 


254  PART  m.   Ch.  xvni.  -  sanctification. 

(1.)  That  of  beginners.  (2.)  That  of  proficients.  (3.)  That 
of  the  truly  perfect,  who  have  subdued  the  habit  of  sin,  and  take 
delight  in  the  practice  of  virtue. 

Wesley  ^  says  ;  "  Perfection  is  the  loving  God  with  all  the  heart, 
mind,  soul,  and  strength.  This  implies  that  no  wrong  temper, 
none  contrary  to  love,  remains  in  the  soul ;  and  that  all  the 
thoughts,  words,  and  actions,  are  governed  by  love."  Dr.  Peck^ 
says  that  it  is  "a  state  of  hoHness  which  fully  meets  the  require- 
ments of  the  Gospel." 

Although  these  definitions  differ  in  some  respects,  they  agree 
in  the  general  idea  that  perfection  consists  in  entire  conformity 
to  the  law  to  which  we  are  now  subject,  and  by  which  we  are  to 
be  judged. 

The  Law  to  which  Believers  are  subject. 

What,  according  to  the  Arminian  theory,  is  that  law  ?  The 
answer  to  that  question  is  given  in  a  negative,  and  in  a  positive 
form.  Negatively,  it  is  said  by  Dr.  Peck  not  to  be  the  Adamic 
law,  or  the  law  originally  given  to  Adam.  Fletcher  ^  says  :  "  With 
respect  to  the  Christless  law  of  paradisiacal  obedience,  we  utterly 
disclaim  sinless  perfection."  "  We  shall  not  be  judged  by  that 
law  ;  but  by  a  law  adapted  to  our  present  state  and  circumstances, 
called  the  law  of  Christ."  "  Our  Heavenly  Father  never  expects 
of  us,  in  our  debilitated  state,  the  obedience  of  immortal  Adam 
in  paradise."  The  positive  statements  are,  "It  is  the  law  of 
Chiist."  "  The  Gospel."  "  The  standard  of  character  set  up  in 
the  Gospel  must  be  such  as  is  practicable  by  man,  fallen  as  he  is. 
Coming  up  to  this  standard  is  what  we  call  Christian  perfection."  * 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  law  according  to  which  men  are 
pronounced  perfect,  is  not  the  original  moral  law,  but  the  miti- 
gated law  suited  to  the  debilitated  state  of  man  since  the  fall. 
The  sin  from  which  the  believer  may  be  entirely  free,  is  not 
all  moral  imperfection  which  in  itself  deserves  punishment,  but 
only  such  delinquencies  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  mitigated 
law  of  the  Gospel. 

On  this  point  the  language  of  Limborch  above  quoted,  is  ex- 
plicit. It  is  not  "  an  absolutely  sinless  perfection  "  that  is  asserted. 
And  Fletcher  says,  We  utterly  disclaim  "  sinless  perfection  "  ac- 
cording to  the  paradisiacal  law.     Wesley  says,  By  sin  is  meant 

1  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  p.  48. 

2  Christian  Perfection,  New  York,  1843,  p.  292. 
8  See  above,  p.  192. 

*  Peck,  Christian  Perfection,  p.  291. 


I 


§8.-|  THEORIES    OF   PERFECTIONISM.  255 

(1.)  Voluntary  transgression  of  known  law.  In  this  sense  all  who 
are  born  of  God  are  free  from  sin.  (2.)  It  means  all  unholy  tem- 
pers, self -mil,  pride,  anger,  sinful  thoughts.  From  these  the  per- 
fect are  free.  (3.)  But  mistakes  and  infirmities  are  not  sins. 
"  These  are,"  indeed,  "  deviations  from  the  perfect  law,  and  conse- 
quently need  atonement.  Yet  they  are  not  properly  sins."  "  A 
person  filled  with  the  love  of  God  is  still  liable  to  these  involun- 
tary transgressions.  Such  transgressions  you  may  call  sins,  if  you 
please,  I  do  not."  ^  The  question,  however,  is  not  what  Wesley 
or  any  other  man  chooses  to  call  sin ;  but  what  does  the  law  of 
God  condemn.  Nothing  which  the  law  does  not  condemn  can 
need  expiation.  If  these  transgressions,  therefore,  need  atonement, 
they  are  sins  in  the  sight  of  God.  Our  refusing  to  recognize  them 
as  such  doas  not  alter  their  nature,  or  remove  their  guilt.  r 

According  to  the  Arminian  system,  especially  as  held  by  the 
Wesleyans,  this  perfection  is  not  due  to  the  native  ability,  or  free 
will  of  man,  but  to  the  grace  of  God,  or  supernatural  influence 
of  the  Spirit.  Perfection  is  a  matter  of  grace,  (1.)  Because  it 
is  solely  on  account  of  the  work  of  Christ  that  God  lowers  the 
demands  of  the  law,  and  accepts  as  perfect  the  obedience  which 
the  milder  law  of  the  Gospel  demands.  (2.)  Because  the  ability 
to  render  this  obedience  is  due  to  the  gracious  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  (3.)  Because  believers  constantly  need  the  inter- 
cession of  Christ  as  our  High  Priest,  to  secure  them  from  con- 
demnation for  involuntary  transgressions,  which,  judged  by  the 
law,  would  incur  its  penalty. 

Oherlin  Theory. 

This  theory  is  so  called  because  its  prominent  advocates  are  the 
officers  of  the  Oberlin  University  in  Ohio.  President  Mahan^ 
says,  perfection  in  holiness  implies  a  full  and  perfect  discharge 
of  our  entire  duty ;  of  all  existing  obligations  in  respect  of  God 
and  all  other  beings.  It  is  loving  God  with  all  the  heart,  soul, 
mind,  and  strength.  It  implies  the  entire  absence  of  selfishness 
and  the  perpetual  presence  and  all  pervading  influence  of  pur(i 
and  perfect  love. 

Professor  Finney  says :  "  By  entire  sanctification,  I  understand 
the  consecration  of  the  whole  being  to  God.  In  other  words,  it 
is  the  state  of  devotedness  to  God  and  his  service  required  by  the 
moral  law.  The  law  is  perfect.  It  requires  just  what  is  right ; 
all  that  is  right,  and  nothing  more.     Nothing  more  iior  less  can 

1  Plain  Account,  pp.  62-67.  2  Christian  Perfection,  p.  7. 


256  PART  m.    Ch.  XVIII.  —  sanctification. 

possibly  be  perfection  or  entire  sanctification  than  obedience  to 
the  law.  Obedience  to  tbe  law  of  God  in  an  infant,  a  man,  an 
angel,  and  in  God  himself,  is  perfection  in  each  of  them.  And 
notliing  can  possibly  be  perfection  in  any  being  short  of  this ;  nor 
can  there  possibly  be  anything  above  it."  ^ 

The  law  which  now  binds  men  and  to  which  they  are  bound  to 
be  perfectly  conformed,  is  the  original  moral  law  given  to  Adam. 
But  that  law  demands  nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than 
what  every  man  in  his  inward  state  and  outward  circumstances 
is  able  to  render.  The  law  meets  man  at  every  step  of  his  as- 
cending or  descending  progress.  The  more  grace,  knowledge,  or 
strength  he  has,  the  more  does  the  law  demand.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  less  of  knowledge,  culture,  moral  susceptibiHty,  or 
strength  he  possesses,  the  less  does  the  law  require  of  him. 

President  Mahan  says.  Perfection  does  not  imply  that  we  love 
God  as  the  saints  do  in  heaven,  but  merely  that  we  love  Him  as 
far  as  practicable  with  our  present  powers. 

Professor  Finney  says,  The  law  does  not  require  that  we  should 
love  God  as  we  might  do,  had  we  always  improved  our  time,  or 
had  we  never  sinned.  It  does  not  suppose  that  our  powers  are  in 
a  perfect  state.     The  service  required  is  regulated  by  our  ability. 

The  principle  of  this  perfect  obedience  is  our  own  natural  abil- 
ity. A  free  moral  agent  must  be  able  to  be  and  to  do  all  that 
the  law  can  justly  demand.  Moral  ability,  natural  ability,  gra- 
cious abihty,  are  distinctions  which  Professor  Finney  pronounces 
perfectly  nonsensical.  "  It  is,"  he  says,  "  a  first  truth  of  reason 
that  moral  obligation  implies  the  possession  of  every  kind  of 
abihty  which  is  required  to  render  the  required  act  possible."  ^ 

The  Oberlin  theory  of  perfection  is  founded  on  the  following 
principles :  — 

1.  Holiness  consists  in  disinterested  benevolence,  i.  e.,  a  perfect 
wilhngness  that  God  should  do  whatever  the  highest  good  of  the 
universe  demands.  A  man  either  has,  or  has  not,  this  willingness. 
If  he  has,  he  has  all  that  is  required  of  him.  He  is  perfect.  If 
he  has  not  this  willingness  he  is  in  rebellion  against  God.  There- 
fore it  is  said,  "  Perfection,  as  implied  in  the  action  of  our  vol- 
untary powers  in  full  harmony  with  our  present  convictions  of 
duty,  is  an  irreversible  condition  of  eternal  life."  ^ 

2.  There  is  no  sin  but  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known 
law. 

1  Oberlin  Evangelist,  vol.  ii.  p.  1. 

a  Sermons,  vol.  iv.  No.  18. 

8  Oberlin  Quarterly  Review,  May  1846,  p.  468. 


§8.]  THEORIES   OF   PERFECTIONISM.  257 

3.  There  is  no  moral  character  in  anything  but  generic  volitions, 
or  those  purposes  which  terminate  on  an  ultimate  end.  There  is 
no  moral  character  in  feeling,  and  much  less  in  states  of  mind  not 
determined  by  the  will.  When  a  anan's  purpose  is  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  the  universe  he  is  perfectly  holy  ;  when  it  is 
anything  else,  he  is  perfectly  sinful. 

4.  Every  man,  in  virtue  of  being  a  free  agent,  has  plenary  abihty 
to  fulfil  all  liis  obligations.  This  principle,  though  mentioned 
last,  is  the  root  of  the  whole  system. 

The  Relation  between  these   Theories  of  Perfection. 

The  Pelagian  and  the  Oberlin  theories  agree  as  to  their  views 
of  the  nature  of  sin  ;  the  abihty  of  man  ;  and  the  extent  of  the 
obligation  of  the  law. 

They  differ  as  to  their  views  of  the  nature  of  virtue  or  holi- 
ness. The  Pelagian  system  does  not  assume  that  disinterested 
benevolence,  or  the  purpose  to  promote  the  highest  good  of  the 
universe,  is  the  sum  of  all  virtue  ;  i.  e.,  it  does  not  put  the  universe 
in  the  place  of  God,  as  that  to  which  our  allegiance  is  due.  They 
differ  also  m  that,  while  the  Oberlin  divines  maintain  the  plenary 
ability  of  man,  they  give  more  importance  to  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  in  that,  it  is  generally  admitted  that  although 
men  have  the  ability  to  do  their  whole  duty,  yet  that  they  will 
not  exert  it  aright  unless  influenced  by  the  grace  of  God. 

The  Romish  and  Arminian  theories  agree,  (1.)  In  that  both 
teach  that  the  law  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be  conformed  is  not 
"  ideal  excellence  ;  "  not  the  Adamic  law  ;  not  the  moral  law  in  its 
original  strictness  ;  but  a  milder  law  suited  to  our  condition  since 
the  fall.  (2.)  That  by  freedom  from  sin  is  not  meant  freedom  from 
what  the  law  in  its  strictness  condemns,  and  what  in  its  nature 
needs  expiation  and  pardon,  but  from  everytliing  which  the  milder 
law,  "  the  law  of  Christ,"  condemns.  (3.)  They  agree  in  denying 
to  men  since  the  fall  ability  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God,  but  attribute  the  abihty  and  disposition  to  obey  to  the 
grace  of  God  ;  or  the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

They  differ  as  to  the  mode  in  which  this  grace  is  communicated, 
in  that  the  Romanists  say  that  it  is  only  through  the  sacraments ; 
whereas  Arminians  say  that  sufficient  grace  is  given  to  all  men, 
which,  if  duly  improved,  secures  such  larger  measures  of  grace  as 
will  enable  the  behever  to  become  perfect.  They  differ  also  as  to 
the  nature  of  good  works  in  so  far  as  Romanists  include  under 
that  category  many  things  not  commanded  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and 

VOL.   III.  17 


258  PART  m.   ch.  xvni.  —  sanctification. 

as  tliey  teacli  tlie  possibility  of  performing  works  of  supereroga- 
tion, which  the  Arminians  deny.  The  Romanists  also  teach  that 
good  works  merit  eternal  life,  which  evangehcal  Arminians  do 
not. 
/  These  theories,  liowever,  all  agree  in  teaching  that  the  law  of 
God  has  been  lowered  in  so  far  that  its  demands  are  satisfied  by  a 
less  degree  of  obedience  than  was  required  of  Adam,  or  of  man 
in  his  normal  state ;  and  therefore  in  calling  that  perfection  which 
in  fact  is  not  perfection,  either  in  the  sight  of  God  or  of  an  en- 
hghtened  conscience.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  a  man 
is  perfect  whose  acts  and  shortcomings  need  expiation  and  the 
\  pardoning  mercy  of  God. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  no  man  hving  has  ever  seen  a 
fellow-man  whom,  even  in  the  imperfect  light  in  which  a  man  re- 
veals himself  to  his  fellows,  he  deems  perfect.  And  no  sound- 
minded  man  can  regard  himself  as  perfect,  unless  he  lowers  the 
standard  of  judgment  to  suit  his  case.  And  here  lies  one  of  the 
special  dangers  of  the  whole  system.  If  the  law  of  God  can  be 
relaxed  in  its  demands  to  suit  the  state  of  its  subjects,  then  there 
is  no  limit  to  be  assigned  to  its  condescension.  Thus  perfection- 
ism has  sometimes,  although  not  among  the  Methodists,  lapsed 
into  antinomianism. 


CHAPTER  XiX. 

THE  LAW. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Principles. 

The  Personality  of  Crod  involved  in  the  Idea  of  Law  ;  and^  there' 
fore^  all  Morality  is  founded  on  Religion. 

The  principal  meanings  of  the  word  law  are,  (1.)  An  estab- 
lished order  in  the  sequence  of  events.  A  law,  in  this  sense, 
is  a  mere  fact.  That  the  planets  are  distant  from  the  sun  accord- 
ing to  a  determined  proportion ;  that  the  leaves  of  a  plant  are 
arranged  in  a  regular  spiral  around  the  stem ;  and  that  one  idea 
by  association  suggests  another,  are  simple  facts.  Yet  they  are 
properly  called  laws,  in  the  sense  of  established  orders  of  sequence 
or  relation.  So  also  what  are  called  the  laws  of  light,  of  sound, 
and  of  chemical  affinity,  are,  for  the  most  part,  mere  facts.  (2.)  A 
uniformly  acting  force  which  determines  the  regular  sequence  of 
events.  In  this  sense  the  physical  forces  which  we  see  in  operation 
around  us,  are  called  the  laws  of  nature.  Gravitation,  light,  heat, 
electricity,  and  magnetism,  are  such  forces.  The  fact  that  they 
act  uniformly  gives  them  the  character  of  laws.  Thus  the  Apos- 
tle speaks  also  of  a  law  of  sin  in  his  members  which  wars  against 
the  law  of  the  mind.  (3.)  Law  is  that  which  binds  the  conscience. 
It  imposes  the  obhgation  of  conformity  to  its  demands  upon  all 
rational  creatures.  This  is  true  of  the  moral  law  in  its  Avidest 
sense.  It  is  also  true  of  human  laws  within  the  sphere  of  their 
legitimate  operation. 

In  all  these  senses  of  the  word,  law  imphes  a  law-giver  ;  that  is, 
an  intelligence  acting  voluntarily  for  the  attainment  of  an  end. 
The  irregular,  or  unregulated  action  of  physical  forces  produces 
chaos  ;  their  ordered  action  produces  the  cosmos.  But  ordered 
action  is  action  preestablished,  sustained,  and  directed  for  the 
accomplishment  of  a  purpose. 

This  is  still  more  obviously  true  with  regard  to  moral  laws. 
The  slightest  analysis  of  onr  feelings  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
moral  obligation  is  the  obligation  to  conform  our  character  and 
conduct  to  the  will  of  an  infinitely  perfect  Being,  who  has  the 


260  PART  m.  ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

authority  to  make  Ms  will  imperative,  and  who  has  the  power 
and  the  right  to  punish  disobedience.  The  sense  of  guilt  especially 
resolves  itself  into  a  consciousness  of  being  amenable  to  a  moral 
governor.  The  moral  law,  therefore,  is  in  its  nature  the  revela- 
tion of  the  will  of  God  so  far  as  that  will  concerns  the  conduct  of 
his  creatures.  It  has  no  other  authority  and  no  other  sanction 
than  that  which  it  derives  from  Him. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  laws  of  men.  They  have 
no  power  or  authority  unless  they  have  a  moral  foundation.  And 
if  they  have  a  moral  basis,  so  that  they  bind  the  conscience,  that 
basis  must  be  the  divine  will.  The  authority  of  civil  rulers,  the 
rights  of  property,  of  marriage,  and  all  other  civil  rights,  do  not 
rest  on  abstractions,  nor  on  general  principles  of  exj)ediency. 
They  might  be  disregarded  without  guilt,  were  they  not  sustained 
by  the  authority  of  God.  All  moral  obligation,  therefore,  resolves 
itself  into  the  obligation  of  conformity  to  the  will  of  God.  And 
all  human  rights  are  founded  on  the  ordinance  of  God.  So  that 
theism  is  the  basis  of  jurisprudence  as  well  as  of  morality.  This 
doctrine  is  taught  by  Stahl,  perhaps  the  greatest  hving  authority 
on  the  philosophy  of  law.  "  Every  philosophical  science,"  he  says, 
"  must  begin  with  the  first  principle  of  all  things,  that  is,  with 
the  Absolute.  It  must,  therefore,  decide  between  Theism  and 
Pantheism,  between  the  doctrine  that  the  first  cause  or  principle 
is  the  personal,  extramundane,  self-reveaUng  God,  and  the  doc- 
trine that  the  first  principle  is  an  impersonal  power  immanent  in 
the  world."  ^  It  is  not  pantheism,  but  fetichism  to  make  all  things 
God.  The  real  question  is,  Whether  the  Absolute  has  personahty 
and  self-consciousness  or  not  ?  Stahl  had  previously  said  to  the 
same  effect,  that  every  philosophy,  and  every  religion,  and  espe- 
cially the  Christian,  must  proceed  on  a  theory  of  the  universe  (a 
Weltanschauung).  It  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  and  of 
his  relation  to  the  world,  that  he  makes  the  foundation  of  legal 
and  political  science  (of  Rechts-  und  Staatslehre).^  He  therefore 
calls  his  system  "  theological "  in  so  far  as  it  makes  the  nature  and 
will  of  God  the  foundation  of  all  duties  and  the  source  of  all 
rights. 

He  recognizes,  however,  the  distinction  between  morality  and 
religion.  "  Morality,"  he  says,  "  is  the  perfection  (VoUendung)  of 
man  in  himself  (so  far  as  the  will  is  concerned)  ;  or  the  revelation 

1  Die  PhilosopJne  des  Rechts,  von  Friedrich  Julius  Stahl;  Rechts-  und  Staatslehre,  I.  i  1» 
§  1;  4th  edit.  Heidelberg,  1870,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  p.  7. 

2  Einleitung,  §  5,  ut  supra,  p.  4. 


§  1.]  PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES.  261 

of  the  divine  being  in  man.  Man  is  the  image  of  God,  and  there- 
fore  in  his  nature  is  like  God,  perfect  or  complete  in  himself ;  and 
conformity  to  the  divine  image  is  for  him  the  goal  and  command. 
(Matt.  V.  45.)  Religion,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  bond  between 
man  and  God,  or  what  binds  men  to  God,  so  that  we  should  know 
and  will  only  in  Him,  refer  everything  to  Him,  —  entire  consecra- 
tion, the  personal  union  with  God.  Thus,  love  of  our  neighbour, 
courage,  sj)irituality  (the  opposite  of  sensuality),  may  be  simply 
moral  virtues  ;  whereas  faith  and  the  love  of  God  are  purely 
religious.  The  courage  of  Napoleon's  guard  was  a  moraL  virtue 
(a  state  of  the  will)  ;  the  courage  of  Luther  was  religious  (a 
power  derived  from  his  relation  to  God)."  ^ 

Religion  and  morality,  although  thus  different,  are  not  indepen- 
dent. They  are  but  different  phases  of  our  relation  to  God.  Stahl, 
therefore,  controverts  the  doctrine  of  Grotius,  that  there  would  be 
a  jus  naturale  if  there  were  no  God ;  which  is  really  equivalent 
to  saying  that  there  would  be  an  obligation  to  goodness  if  there 
were  no  such  tiling  as  goodness.  Moral  excellence  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  God.  He  is  concrete  goodness  ;  infinite  reason,  excel- 
lence, knowledge,  and  power  in  a  personal  form  ;  so  that  there  can 
be  no  obligation  to  virtue  which  does  not  involve  obhgation  to 
God.  Wolf  carried  out  the  doctrine  of  Grotius  to  the  length  of 
saying  that  an  Atheist,  if  consistent,  would  act  just  as  the  Chris- 
tian acts.  This  principle  of  Grotius,  says  Stahl,  contained  the 
germ  of  separation  from  religion,  which  unfolded  itself  with  Kant 
into  an  ignoring,  and,  with  those  who  followed  him,  into  the  denial 
of  God.2 

"  The  primary  idea  of  goodness,  is  the  essential,  not  the  crea- 
tive, will  of  God.  The  divine  will  in  its  essence  is  infinite  love, 
mercy,  patience,  truth,  faithfulness,  rectitude,  spirituaHty,  and  all 
that  is  inckided  in  holiness,  which  constitutes  the  inmost  nature  of 
God.  The  holiness  of  God,  therefore,  neither  precedes  his  will 
('  sanctitas  antecedens  voluntatem  '  of  the  Schoolmen),  nor  fol- 
lows it,  but  is  his  will  itself.  The  good  is  not  a  law  for  the  divine 
will  (so  that  God  wills  it  because  it  is  good)  ;  neither  is  it  a  crea- 
tion of  his  will  (so  that  it  becomes  good  because  He  wills  it); 
but  it  is  the  nature  (das  UrwoUen)  of  God  from  everlasting  to 
everlasting."  ^  Again  it  is  said,  "  Hence  it  follows  that  moral 
goodness  is  concrete,  specific,  ....  absolute,  origmal,  as  little 
determined  by  logical  laws  as  by  a  relation  to  external  ends 

1  Stahl,  ut  supra  i.  ii.  1,  §  24;  Thid.  p.  71.  2  Hid.  pp.  73,74. 

8  Ibid.    I.  ii.  2,  §  20 ;  Ihid.  pp.  84,  85. 


262  PART  ni.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

This  is  not  tlie  doctrine  of  modern  ethics.  According  to  the  eu* 
daimonistic  view  adopted  by  the  EngUsh  philosophers,  by  Thom- 
asius,  and  others,  the  good  is  good  because  it  tends  to  produce  hap- 
piness.      According   to    the  rationahsts,  the  good  is  conformity 

•svith  the  laws  of   thought  (Denkrichtigkeit) This  was 

the  real  doctrine  of  Wolf,  who  made  morality  to  consist  in  order 
(Regelmiissigkeit);  still  more  decidedly  was  it  the  doctrine  of 
Kant,  with  whom  the  moral  law  is  a  consequence  of  the  laws  of 
thouglit.  He  says,  expressly,  that  the  idea  of  moral  good  must 
be  derived  from  preceding  law,  that  is,  the  law  of  reason."  ^ 

These  two  principles,  then,  are  to  be  taken  for  granted ;  first, 
that  moral  good  is  good  in  its  o^vn  nature,  and  not  because  of  its 
tendencies,  or  because  of  its  conformity  to  the  laws  of  reason ;  and, 
second,  that  all  law  has  its  foundation  in  the  nature  and  will  of 
God.  These  principles  are  very  comprehensive.  They  are  of 
special  importance  in  the  exposition  of  the  law  in  its  aspect  as  the 
revealed  will  of  God  designed  to  regulate  human  character  and 
conduct. 

Protestant  Principles  limiting  Obedience  to  Human  Laws. 

There  is  another  principle  regarded  as  fundamental  by  all  Prot- 
estants, and  that  is,  that  the  Bible  contains  the  whole  rule  of 
duty  for  men  in  their  present  state  of  existence.  Nothing  can 
legitimately  bind  the  conscience  that  is  not  commanded  or  forbid- 
den by  the  Word  of  God.  This  principle  is  the  safeguard  of  that 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free.  If  it  be  re- 
nounced, we  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  external  Church,  of  the 
State,  or  of  public  opinion.  This  is  simply  the  principle  that  it 
is  right  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  Our  obligation  to  render 
obedience  to  human  enactments  in  any  form,  rests  upon  our  obH- 
gation  to  obey  God ;  and,  therefore,  whenever  human  laws  are 
in  conflict  with  the  law  of  God  we  are  bound  to  disobey  them. 
When  heathen  emperors  commanded  Christians  to  worship  idols, 
the  martyrs  refused.  When  popes  and  councils  commanded 
Protestants  to  worship  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  to  acknowledge  the 
supremacy  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  the  Protestant  martyrs  refused. 
When  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  were  required  by  their  ru- 
lers in  Church  and  State  to  submit  themselves  to  the  author- 
ity of  prelatical  bishops,  they  refused.  When  the  Puritans  of 
England  were  called  upon  to  recognize  the  doctrme  of  '"passive 
obedience,"  they  again  refused.     And  it  is  to  the  stand  thus  taken 

1  Stahl,  ut  supra,  p.  87. 


§  1]  PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES.  263 

by  those  martyrs  and  confessors  that  the  world  is  indebted  for  all 
of  the  religious  and  civil  liberty  it  now  enjoys. 

Whether  any  enactment  of  the  Church  or  State  conflicts  with 
the  truth  or  law  of  God,  is  a  question  which  every  man  must  de- 
cide for  himself.  On  him  individually  rests  the  responsibility, 
and  therefore  to  him,  as  an  individual,  belongs  the  right  of  judg- 
ment. 

Although  these  principles,  when  stated  in  thesi,  are  universally 
recognized  among  Protestants,  they  are  nevertheless  very  fre- 
quently disregarded.  This  is  true  not  only  of  the  past  when  the 
Church  and  State  both  openly  claimed  the  right  to  make  laws  to 
bind  the  conscience.  It  is  true  at  the  present  time.  Men  still 
insist  on  the  right  of  making  that  sin  which  God  does  not  forbid ; 
and  that  obHgatory  which  God  has  not  commanded.  They  pre- 
scribe rules  of  conduct  and  terms  of  church  fellowship,  which 
have  no  sanction  in  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  just  as  much  a  duty 
for  the  people  of  God  to  resist  such  usurpations,  as  it  was  for  the 
early  Christians  to  resist  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Emperors 
in  matters  of  religion,  or  for  the  early  Protestants  to  refuse  to 
recognize  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  determine  for  them  what  they 
were  to  beHeve,  and  what  they  were  to  do.  The  essence  of  infi- 
delity consists  in  a  man's  putting  his  own  convictions  on  matters 
of  truth  and  duty  above  the  Bible.  Tliis  may  be  done  by  fanatics 
in  the  cause  of  benevolence,  as  well  as  by  fanatics  in  any  other 
cause.  It  is  infidelity  in  either  case.  And  as  such  it  should  be 
denounced  and  resisted  unless  we  are  wilHng  to  renounce  our  alle- 
giance to  God,  and  make  ourselves  the  servants  of  men. 

Christian  Liberty  in  Matters  of  Indifference. 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  principle  above  stated,  that  a 
tiling  may  be  right  or  wrong  according  to  circumstances,  ?.iid, 
therefore,  it  may  often  be  wrong  for  a  man  to  do  what  the  Bible 
does  not  condemn.  Paul  himself  circumcised  Timothy ;  yet  he 
told  the  Galatians  that  if  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  circum- 
cised, Christ  would  profit  them  nothing.  Eating  meat  offered  in 
sacrifice  to  idols  was  a  matter  of  indifference.  Yet  the  Apostle 
said,  "  If  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  flesh 
while  the  world  standeth,  lest  I  make  my  brother  to  offend." 

There  are  two  important  principles  involved  in  these  Scriptural 
facts.  The  first  is,  that  a  thing  indifferent  in  itself  may  become 
even  fatally  wrong  if  done  with  a  wrong  intention.  Circumcision 
was  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  was  nothing.     It  mattered  little 


264 


PART  III.     Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 


wlieilier  a  man  was  circumcised  or  not.  But  if  any  one  sub- 
mitted to  circumcision  as  an  act  of  legal  obedience,  and  as  tbe 
necessary  condition  of  bis  justification  before  God,  he  thereby  re- 
jected the  Gospel,  or,  as  the  Apostle  expressed  it,  he  fell  from 
grace.  He  renounced  the  gratuitous  method  of  justification,  and 
Christ  became  of  no  effect  to  him.  In  like  manner,  eating  meatj 
which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  an  idol,  was  a  matter  of  in- 
difference. "  Meat,"  says  Paul,  " commendeth  us  not  to  God:  for 
neither,  if  we  eat,  are  we  the  better ;  neither,  if  we  eat  not,  are 
we  the  worse."  Yet  if  a  man  ate  su.cli  meat  as  an  act  of  reverence 
to  the  idol,  or  under  circumstances  which  implied  that  it  was  an 
act  of  worship,  he  was  guilty  of  idolatry.  And,  therefore,  the 
Apostle  taught  that  participation  in  feasts  held  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  an  idol's  temple,  was  idolatry. 

The  other  principle  is  that,  no  matter  what  our  intention  mayi 
be,  we  sin  against  Christ  when  we  make  such  use  of  our  hberty,! 
in  matters  of  indifference,  as  causes  others  to  offend.  In  the  first 
of  these  cases  the  sin  was  not  in  being  circumcised,  but  in  making 
circumcision  a  condition  of  our  justification.  In  the  second  case,! 
the  idolatry  consisted  not  m  eating  meat  offered  in  sacrifice  to! 
idols,  but  in  eating  it  as  an  act  of  worship  to  the  idol.  And  iai 
the  third  case,  the  sin  was  not  in  asserting  our  liberty  in  matteraj 
of  indifference,  but  in  causing  others  to  offend. 

The  rules  which  the  Scriptures  clearly  lay  down  on  this  subject 
are  :   (1.)  That  no  man  or  body  of  men  has  the  right  to  pronoimcc 
that  to  be  smful  which  God  does  not  forbid.     There  was  no  si 
in  being  circumcised,  or  in  eating  meat,  or  in  keepmg  the  sacreid 
days  of  the  Hebi^ews.     (2.)  That  it  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
love,  and  therefore  a  sin  against  Christ,  to  make  such  use  of  oi 
liberty  as  to  cause  others  to  sin.     "  Take  heed,"  says  the  Apostle,! 
"  lest  by  any  means  this  liberty  of  yovu's  become  a  stumbling! 
block  to  them  that  are  weak."     "  When  ye  sin  so  against  the 
brethren,  and  wound  their  weak  conscience,  ye  sin  against  Christ."] 
(1  Cor.  viii.  9, 12.)    "  It  is  good  (z.  e.,  morally  obligatory)  neithei 
to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wme,  nor  any  thing  whereby  thy  brother! 
stumbleth,  or  is  offended,  or  is  made  weak."     "  All  things  indeec 
are  pure,  but  it  is  evil  for  that  man  who  eateth  with  offence.'  j 
(Rom.  xiv.  21,  20.)    (3).  Nothing  in  itseK  indifferent  can  be  madoj 
the  ground  of  permanent  and  miiversal  obligation.    Because  it  wasi 
wrong  in  Galatia  to  submit  to  circumcision,  it  does  not  follow  that 
it  was  ^vl'ong  in  Paul  to  circumcise  Timothy.     Because  it  wasj 
wrong  in  Cormth  to  eat  meat,  it  does  not  foUow  that  it  is  wrong! 


§1]  PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES.  106 

always  and  everywhere.     An  obligation   arising  out  of  circum- 
stances must  vary  with  circumstances.     (4.)  When  it  is  oblig- 
atory to  abstain  from  the  use  of  things  indifferent,  is  a  matter 
of  private  judgment.     No  man  has  the  right  to  decide  that  ques- 
tion for  other  men.     No  bishop,  priest,  or  church  court  has  the 
right  to  decide  it.     Otherwise  it  would  not  be  a  matter  of  liberty. 
Paul  constantly  recognized  the  right  (i$ovma')   of  Christians  to 
judge  in  such  cases  for  themselves.     He  does  this  not  by  implica- 
tion only,  but  he  also  expressly  asserts  it,  and  condemns  those 
who  would  call  it  in  question.     "  Let  not  him  that  eateth  despise 
hun  that  eateth  not ;  and  let  not  him  wliich  eateth  not  judge  him 
that  eateth :    for  God  hath  received  him.      Who  art   thou  that 
judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth."     "  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another  :  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.     Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in 
his  own  mind."      (Rom.  xiv.  3,  4,  5.)     It  is  a  common  saying 
that  every  man  has  a  pope  in  his  own  bosom.     That  is,  the  dispo- 
sition to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage  is  almost  universal.     Men 
wish  to  have  their  opinions  on  moral  questions  made  into  laws  to 
bind  the  consciences  of  their  brethren.     This  is  just  as  much  a 
usm-pation  of  a  dLvine  prerogative  when  done  by  a  private  Chris- 
tian or  by  a  church  court,  as  when  done  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
We  are  as  much  bound  to  resist  it  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
(5.)  It  is  involved  in  what  has  been  said  that  the  use  which  a  man 
makes  of  his  Christian  Hberty  can  never  be  legitimately  made  the 
ground  of  church  censure,  or  a  term  of  Christian  communion. 

Scriptural  Usage  of  the  Word  Law. 
The  Scriptures  uniformly  understand  by  law  a  manifestation  of 
the  will  of  God.  All  the  operations  of  nature  are  ordered  by 
laws  of  his  appointment.  And  his  will  is  represented  as  the  ulti- 
mate foundation  of  moral  obligation.  In  Hebrew  it  is  called 
n-in,  instruction,  because  it  is,  as  the  Apostle  says,  "  the  form  of 
knowledge  and  of  the  truth."  It  is  the  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  In  Greek  it  is  called  .'o>os,  custom,  and  then,  as  custom 
or  usage  regulates  the  conduct  of  men,  whatever  has  that  author- 
ity, or  does  in  fact  control  action,  is  called  io>os.  In  the  New 
Testament ^  it  is  constantly  used  in  this  wide  sense.  It  is  some- 
times applied  to  a  rule  of  conduct  however  revealed ;  sometimes 
to  the  Scriptures  as  the  supernaturally  revealed  will  of  God,  as 
the  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  sometimes  to  the  Pentateuch  or 
Law  of  Moses ;  and  sometimes  specifically  to  the  moral  law.     It 


266 


PART  in.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 


is  here  to  be  taken  to  mean  that  revelation  of  the  will  of  Godl 
which  is  designed  to  bind  the  conscience  and  to  regulate  the  con- 
duct of  men.  , 
How  the  Law  is  revealed. 

This  law  is  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  and  morel 
fully  and  clearly  in  the  written  Word  of  God.  That  there  is  al 
binding  revelation  of  the  law,  independently  of  any  supernatural! 
external  revelation,  is  expressly  taught  in  the  Bible.  Paul  saysj 
of  the  heathen  that  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves.  They  have! 
the  law  written  on  their  hearts.  This  is  proved,  he  tells  us,  be- 
cause they  do,  4>v(t^l,  by  nature,  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of  the  constitution] 
of  their  nature,  the  things  of  the  law.  The  same  moral  acta] 
which  the  written  law  prescribes,  the  conduct  of  the  heathenj 
shows  that  they  know  to  be  obligatory.  Hence  their  conscience! 
approves  or  disapproves,  as  they  obey  or  disobey  this  inwardly] 
revealed  law.  What  is  thus  taught  in  Scripture  is  confirmed} 
by  consciousness  and  experience.  Every  man  is  conscious  of  a] 
'knowledge  of  right  and  wrong,  and  of  a  sense  of  obligation,  whicHj 
are  independent  of  all  external  revelation.  He  may  be  unable  toj 
determine  whence  that  knowledge  comes.  He  knows,  however,! 
that  it  has  been  in  him  coeval  with  the  dawn  of  reason,  and  has] 
enlarged  and  strengthened  just  as  his  reason  unfolded.  His  con- 
sciousness tells  him  that  the  rule  is  within,  and  would  be  there] 
though  no  positive  or  external  revelation  of  duty  existed.  In] 
other  words,  we  do  not  refer  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  to  anj 
externally  revealed  law,  as  its  source,  but  to  the  constitution  of] 
our  nature.  This  is  not  the  experience  of  any  class  of  men  ex- 
clusively, but  the  common  experience  of  the  race.  Wherever] 
there  are  men,  there  is  the  sense  of  moral  obligation,  and  a] 
knowledge  of  right  and  wrong. 

It  is  frequently  objected  to  this  doctrine  that  men  differ  widely] 
in  their  moral  judgments.      What  men  of  one  age  or  coimtry 
regard  as  virtues,  men  of  other  ages   or  countries  denounce  asj 
crimes.     But  this  very  diversity  proves  the  existence  of  the  moral  j 
sense.     Men  could  not  differ  in  judgments  about  beauty,  if  thej 
Eesthetic  element  did  not  belong  to  their  nature.     Neither  could 
they  differ  on  questions  of  morality  unless  the  sense  of  right  andj 
wrong  were  innate  and  universal.     The  diversity  in  question  ia  \ 
not  greater  than  in  regard  to  rational  truths.     That  men  differ  in 
their  judgments  as  to  what  is  true,  is  no  proof  that  reason  is  not 
a  natural  and  essential  element  of  their  constitution.     As  there) 
are  certain  truths  of  the  reason  which  are  intuitive  and  perceived  \ 


§1.]  PRELIMINARY  PRINCIPLES.  267 

by  all  men,  so  there  are  moral  truths  so  simple  that  they  are  uni- 
versally recognized.  As  beyond  these  narrow  limits  there  is 
diversity  of  knowledge,  so  there  must  be  diversity  of  judgment. 
But  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that  even 
the  most  degraded  heathen  are  a  law  mito  themselves,  and  show 
the  work  of  the  law  written  on  their  hearts.  As  the  revelation 
which  God  has  made  of  his  eternal  power  and  Godliead  in  his 
works  is  true  and  trustworthy,  and  sufficient  to  render  ignorance 
or  denial  of  his  existence  inexcusable,  while  it  does  not  supersede 
the  necessity  of  a  clearer  revelation  in  his  word;  so  there  is  an 
imperfect  revelation  of  the  Taw  made  in  the  very  constitution  of 
our  nature,  by  which  those  who  have  no  other  revelation  are  to 
be  judged,  but  which  does  not  render  unnecessary  the  clearer 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

Different  Kinds  of  Laws. 

In  looking  into  the  Bible  as  containing  a  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God,  the  first  thing  which  arrests  attention  is  the  great  diver- 
sity of  precepts  therein  contained.  This  difference  concerns  the 
nature  of  the  precepts,  and  the  ground  on  which  they  rest,  or  the 
reason  why  they  are  obligatory. 

1.  There  are  laws  which  are  founded  on  the  nature  of  God. 
To  this  class  belong  the  command  to  love  God  supremely,  to  be 
just,  merciful,  and  kind.  Love  must  everywhere  and  always  be 
obligatory.  Pride,  envy,  and  malice  must  everywhere  and  al- 
ways be  evil.  Such  laws  bind  all  rational  creatures,  angels  as 
well  as  men.  The  criterion  of  these  laws  is  that  they  are  abso- 
lutely immutable  and  indispensable.  Any  change  in  them  would 
imply,  not  merely  a  change  in  the  relations  of  men,  but  in  the 
very  nature  of  God. 

2.  A  second  class  of  laws  includes  those  which  are  founded  on 
the  permanent  relations  of  men  in  their  present  state  of  existence. 
Such  are  the  moral,  as  opposed  to  mere  statute  laws,  concerning 
property,  marriage,  and  the  duties  of  parents  and  children,  or 
superiors  and  inferiors.  Such  laws  concern  men  only  in  their 
present  state  of  being.  They  are,  however,  permanent  so  long  as 
the  relations  which  they  contemplate  continue.  Some  of  these 
laws  bind  men  as  men  ;  others  husbands  as  husbands,  wives  as 
wives,  and  parents  and  children  as  such,  and  consequently  they 
bind  all  men  who  sustain  these  several  relations.  They  are 
founded  on  the  nature  of  things,  as  it  is  called  ;  that  is,  upon  the 
constitution  which  God  has  seen  fit  to  ordain.     This  constitution 


268  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

miffht  liavG  been  different,  and  then  these  kiws  would  have  hud 
no  place.  The  right  of  property  need  not  have  existed.  God 
might  have  made  all  things  as  common  as  snn-light  or  air.  Men 
might  have  been  as  angels,  neither  marrying  nor  giving  in  mar- 
riage. Under  such  a  constitution  there  would  be  no  room  for  a 
multitude  of  laws  which  are  now  of  xmiversal  and  necessary  ob- 
ligation. 

3.  A  third  class  of  laws  have  their  foundation  in  certain  tempo- 
rary relations  of  men,  or  conditions  of  society,  and  are  enforced 
by  the  authority  of  God.  To  this  class  belong  many  of  the  judi- 
cial or  civil  laws  of  the  ancient  theocracy  ;  laws  regulating  the 
distribution  of  property,  the  duties  of  husbands  and  wives,  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  etc.  These  laws  were  the  apphcation  of 
general  principles  of  justice  and  right  to  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  Hebrew  people.  Such  enactments  bind  only  those 
who  are  in  the  circumstances  contemplated,  and  cease  to  be 
obligatory  when  those  circumstances  change.  It  is  always  and 
everywhere  right  that  crime  should  be  punished,  but  the  kind  or 
degree  of  punishment  may  vary  with  the  varying  condition  of 
society.  It  is  always  right  that  the  poor  should  be  supported, 
but  one  mode  of  discharging  that  duty  may  be  proper  in  one  age 
and  country,  and  another  preferable  in  other  times  and  places. 
All  those  laws,  therefore,  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  had  their 
foundation  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  Hebrews,  ceased 
to  be  binding  when  the  old  dispensation  passed  away. 

It  is  often  difficult  to  determine  to  which  of  the  last  two  classes 
certain  laws  of  the  Old  Testament  belong ;  and  therefore,  to  de- 
cide whether  they  are  still  obligatory  or  not.  Deplorable  evils 
have  flowed  from  mistakes  as  to  this  point.  The  theories  of  the 
union  of  Church  and  State,  of  the  right  of  the  magistrate  to  inter- 
fere authoritatively  in  matters  of  religion,  and  of  the  duty  of  per- 
secution, so  far  as  Scriptural  authority  is  concerned,  rest  on  the 
transfer  of  laws  founded  on  the  temporary  relations  of  the  Hebrews 
to  the  altered  relations  of  Christians.  Because  the  Hebrew  kings 
were  the  guardians  of  both  tables  of  the  Law,  and  were  required 
to  suppress  idolatry  and  all  false  religion,  it  was  inferred  that  such 
is  still  the  duty  of  the  Christian  magistrate.  Because  Samuel 
hewed  Agag  to  pieces,  it  was  inferred  to  be  right  to  deal  in  like 
manner  with  heretics.  No  one  can  read  the  histoiy  of  the  Church 
without  being  impressed  with  the  dreadful  evils  which  have 
flowed  from  this  mistake.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  some 
of   the   iudicial  laws  of   the  Old  Testament  which  were  really 


§  1.]  PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES.  269 

founded  on  the  permanent  relations  of  men,  and  therefore,  were  in- 
tended to  be  of  perpetual  obligation,  which  many  have  repudiated 
as  peculiar  to  the  old  dispensation.  Such  are  some  of  the  laws 
relating  to  marriage,  and  to  the  infliction  of  capital  punishment 
for  the  crime  of  murder.  If  it  be  asked,  How  are  we  to  deter- 
mine whether  any  judicial  law  of  the  Old  Testament  is  still  in 
force  ?  the  answer  is  first,  When  the  continued  authority  of  such 
law  is  recognized  in  the  New  Testament.  That  for  Christians 
is  decisive.  And  secondly.  If  the  reason  or  groiuid  for  a  given  law 
is  permanent,  the  law  itself  is  permanent. 

4.  The  fourth  class  of  laws  are  those  called  positive,  which 
derive  all  their  authority  from  the  exphcit  command  of  God. 
Such  are  external  rites  and  ceremonies,  as  circumcision,  sacrifices, 
and  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and  between 
months,  days,  and  years.  The  criterion  of  such  laws  is  that  they 
would  not  be  binding  unless  positively  enacted ;  and  that  they 
bind  those  only  to  whom  they  are  given,  and  only  so  long  as  they 
continue  in  force  by  the  appointment  of  God.  Such  laws  may  have 
answered  important  ends,  and  vahd  reasons  doubtless  existed  why 
they  were  imposed  ;  still  they  are  specifically  different  from  those 
commands  which  are  in  their  own  nature  morally  obligatory. 
The  obligation  to  obey  such  laws  does  not  arise  from  their  fit- 
ness for  the  end  for  which  they  have  been  given,  but  solely  from 
the  divine  command. 

How  far  may  the  Laivs  contained  in  the  Bible  he  dispensed  with? 

i      This  is  a  question  much  discussed  between  Protestants  and  Ro- 
Imanists.      Protestants  contended   that   the  Church   had  not  the 
j  power  claimed  by  Romanists,  to  relieve  men  from  the  obligation 
I  of    an  oath,  and  to  render  marriages  lawful  which  mthout  the 
I  sanction  of  the  Church  would  be  invahd.  The  Church  has  neither 
the  authority  to  set  aside  any  law  of  God,  nor  to  decide  the  cir- 
cumstances under  Avhich  a  divine  law  ceases  to  be  obhgatory,  so 
that  it  continues  in  force  until  the  Church  declares  the  parties  free 
from  its  obligation.     On  this  subject  it  is  plain,  (1.)  That  none 
3Ut  God  can  free  men  from  the  obligation  of  any  divine  law,  which 
He  has  imposed  upon  them.   (2.)  That  mth  regard  to  the  positive 
laws  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  such  judicial  enactments  as  were 
designed  exclusively  for  the  Hebrews  living  under  the  theocracy, 
they  were  all  abolished  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion.    We  are  no  longer  under  obligation  to  circumcise  our  chil- 
dren, to  keep  the  Passover,  or  feast  of  tabernacles,  or  to  go  up 


270  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

three  times  in  the  year  to  Jerusalem,  or  to  exact  an  eye  for  an  eye, 
or  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.  (3.)  With  regard  to  those  laws  whicli  are 
founded  on  the  permanent  relations  of  men,  such  as  the  laws  of 
property,  of  marriage,  and  of  obedience  to  parents,  they  can  be  set 
aside  by  the  authority  of  God.  It  was  not  wrong  for  the  Hebrews 
to  spoil  the  Egyptians  or  to  dispossess  the  Canaanites,  because  He 
whose  is  the  earth  and  the  fulness  thereof,  authorized  those  acts. 
He  had  a  right  to  take  the  property  of  one  people  and  give  it  to 
another.  The  extermination  of  the  idolatrous  inhabitants  of  the 
promised  land  at  the  command  of  Joshua,  was  as  much  an  act 
of  God  as  though  it  had  been  effected  by  pestilence  or  famine. 
It  was  a  judicial  execution  by  the  Supreme  Ruler.  In  hke  man- 
ner, although  marriage  as  instituted  by  God  was  and  is  an  indis- 
soluble covenant  between  one  man  and  one  woman,  yet  He  saw 
fit  to  allow,  under  the  Mosaic  Law,  within  certain  limitations,  both 
polygamy  and  divorce.  While  that  permission  continued,  those 
things  were  lawful ;  when  it  was  mth drawn,  they  ceased  to  be 
allowable. 

When  one  Divine  Law  is  superseded  hy  another. 

The  above  classification  of  the  divine  laws,  which  is  the  one 
usually  adopted,  shows  that  they  differ  in  their  relative  dignity 
and  importance.  Hence  when  they  come  into  conflict  the  lower 
must  yield  to  the  higher.  This  we  are  taught  when  God  says, 
"  I  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice."  And  our  Lord  also  says, 
"  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath," 
and,  therefore,  the  Sabbath  might  be  violated  when  the  duties  of 
mercy  rendered  it  necessary.  Throughout  the  Scriptures  we  find 
positive  laws  subordinated  to  those  of  moral  obligation.  Christ 
approved  of  the  lawyer  who  said  that  to  love  God  with  all  the 
heart,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  "  is  more  than  all  whole 
burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices." 

Perfection  of  the  Law. 

The  perfection  of  the  moral  law  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures, 
includes  the  points  already  considered,  —  (1.)  That  everything 
that  the  Bible  pronounces  to  be  wrong,  is  wrong  ;  that  everything 
which  it  declares  to  be  right,  is  right.  (2.)  That  nothing  is  sinful 
which  the  Bible  does  not  condemn  ;  and  nothing  is  obligatory  on 
the  conscience  which  it  does  not  enjoin.  (3.)  That  the  Scriptures 
are  a  complete  rule  of  duty,  not  only  in  the  sense  just  stated,  but 
also  in  the  sense  that  there  is  and  can  be  no  higher  standard  of 


§  1.]  PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES.  271 

moral  excellence.  Romanists,  on  the  contraiy,  teach  that  a  man 
can  do  more  than  the  law  requires.  There  are  certain  things 
which  are  commanded,  and  therefore  absolutely  obHgatory ;  and 
others  which  are  recommended,  but  not  enjoined,  such  as  volun- 
tary poverty,  celibacy,  and  monastic  obedience.  These  are  held 
to  be  virtues  of  a  higher  grade  than  obedience  to  explicit  com- 
mands. This  doctrine  is  founded  on  the  erroneous  views  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  on  the  nature  of  sin,  and  the  grounds  of  moral 
obligation.  If  nothing  is  sinful  but  voluntary,  i.  e.,  deliberate 
transgression  of  known  law  ;  and  if  the  law  is  satisfied  by  volun- 
tary action  in  this  sense  of  the  terms,  then  it  is  conceivable  that  a 
man  may  in  this  life  render  perfect  obedience  to  the  law,  and  even 
go  beyond  its  demands.  This  is  also  comiected  with  the  distinc- 
tion which  Romanists  make  between  mortal  and  venial  sins.  The 
former  are  those  which  forfeit  baptismal  grace,  and  reduce  the 
soul  to  its  original  state  of  spiritual  death  and  condemnation. 
The  latter  are  sins  which  have  not  this  deadly  effect,  but  can  be 
fuUy  atoned  for  by  confession  and  penance.  But  if  the  law  of 
God  be  spiritual,  extending  to  the  thoughts  and  feelings  whether 
impulsive  or  cherished ;  and  if  it  demands  all  kinds  and  degrees 
of  moral  excellence,  or  complete  congeniality  with  God,  and  con- 
formity to  his  image,  then  there  is  no  room  for  these  distinctions, 
and  no  higher  rule  of  moral  conduct.  The  law  of  the  Lord, 
therefore,  is  perfect  in  every  sense  of  the  word. 

The  Decalogue. 

The  question  whether  the  decalogue  is  a  perfect  rule  of  duty 
is,  in  one  sense,  to  be  answered  in  the  affirmative.  (1.)  Because 
it  enjoins  love  to  God  and  man,  which,  our  Saviour  teaches,  in- 
cludes every  other  duty.  (2.)  Because  our  Lord  held  it  up  as  a 
perfect  code,  when  he  said  to  the  young  man  in  the  Gospel,  "  This 
do  and  thou  shalt  live."  (3.)  Every  specific  command  elsewhere 
recorded  may  be  referred  to  some  one  of  its  several  commands. 
So  that  perfect  obedience  to  the  decalogue  in  its  spirit,  would  be 
perfect  obedience  to  the  law.  Nevertheless,  there  are  many  things 
obligatory  on  us,  which  without  a  further  revelation  of  the  will  of 
God  than  is  contained  in  the  decalogue,  we  never  should  have 
known  to  be  obligatory.  The  great  duty  of  men  under  the  Gos- 
pel, is  faith  in  Christ.  This  our  Lord  teaches  when  He  says, 
"  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent."  This  comprehends  or  produces  all  that  is  required  of  us 
either  as  to  faith  or  practice.  Hence  he  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved. 


272  PART  in.     Ch.   XIX.— THE   LAW. 

Rules  of  Interpretation. 
Theologians  are  accustomed  to  lay  down  numerous  rules  for  the 
proper  mterpretation  of  the  divine  law,  such  as  that  negative  pre- 
cepts are  to  be  understood  as  including  positive,  and  positive, 
negative ;  tliat,  in  forbidding  an  act,  everything  which  naturally 
leads  to  it  is  comprehended ;  that,  in  condemning  one  offence,  all 
others  of  a  like  kind  are  forbidden,  and  the  like.  All  such  rules 
resolve  themselves  into  one.  The  decalogue  is  not  to  be  inter- 
preted as  the  laws  of  men,  which  take  cognizance  only  of  external 
acts,  but  -as  the  law  of  God,  which  extends  to  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart.  ,In  all  cases  it  will  be  found  that  the  several 
commandments  contain  some  comprehensive  principle  of  duty, 
under  which  a  multitude  of  subordinate  specific  duties  are  included. 

§  2.  Division  of  the    Contents  of  the  Decalogue. 

As  the  law  given  on  Sinai  and  written  on  two  tables  of  stone, 
is  repeatedly  called  in  the  Scriptures  "  The  Ten  Words,"  or,  as  it 
is  in  the  Enghsh  version  of  Exodus  xxxiv.  28,  "  The  Ten  Com- 
mandments," there  is  no  doubt  that  the  contents  of  that  law  are 
to  be  divided  into  ten  distinct  precepts.  (See  Dent.  iv.  13,  and 
X.  4.)  Tliis  summary  of  moral  duties  is  also  called  in  Scripture 
"  The  Covenant,"  as  containing  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
solemn  contract  between  God  and  his  chosen  people.  Still  more 
frequently  it  is  called  "  The  Testimony,"  as  the  attestation  of  the 
will  of  God  concerning  human  character  and  conduct. 

The  decalogue  aj)pears  in  two  forms  which  differ  slightly  from 
each  other.  The  original  form  is  found  in  Exodus  the  twentieth 
chapter  ;  the  other  in  Deuteronomy  v.  6-21.  The  principal  differ- 
ences between  them  are,  first,  that  the  command  respecting  the 
Sabbath  is  in  Exodus  enforced  by  a  reference  to  God's  resting  on 
the  seventh  day,  after  the  work  of  creation  ;  whereas  in  Deuteron- 
omy it  is  enforced  by  a  reference  to  God's  delivering  his  peoj^le 
out  of  Egypt.  Secondly,  in  the  command  respecting  coveting,  in 
Exodus,  it  is  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighboui's  house, 
thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife,"  etc.  In  both  clauses 
the  word  is  -\izn-  In  Deuteronomy  it  is,  "Neither  shalt  thou  de- 
sire (~rrr)  thy  neighbour's  wife ;  neither  shalt  thou  covet  (ms) 
thy  neighbour's  house,"  etc.  This  latter  difference  has  been 
magnified  into  a  matter  of  importance. 

The  Scriptures  themselves  determine  the  number  of  the  com- 
mandments, but  not  in  all  cases  what  they  are.     They  are  not 


§2.]  DIVISION   OF   THE   DECALOGUE.  273 

numbered  off  as  first,  second,  third,  etc.  The  consequence  is  that 
different  modes  of  division  have  been  adopted.  Tlie  Jews  from 
an  early  period  adopted  the  arrangement  wliich  is  still  recognized 
by  them.  They  regard  the  words  in  Exodus  xx.  2,  as  constitut- 
ing the  first  commandment,  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have 
brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bond- 
age." The  command  is  that  the  people  should  recognize  Jehovah 
as  their  God  ;  and  the  special  ground  of  this  recognition  is  made 
to  be,  that  He  dehvered  them  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Egypt- 
ians. These  words,  however,  are  not  in  the  form  of  a  command. 
They  constitute  the  preface  or  introduction  to  the  solemn  injunc- 
tions which  follow.  In  making  the  preface  one  of  the  command- 
ments it  became,  necessary  to  preserve  the  number  ten,  by  unit- 
ing the  first  and  second,  as  they  are  commonly  arranged.  The 
command,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  and 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,"  being 
regarded  as  substantially  the  same;  the  latter  being  merely  an 
amplification  of  the  former.  An  idol  Avas  a  false  god ;  worship- 
ping idols  was  therefore  having  other  gods  than  Jehovah. 

Augustine,  and  after  him  the  Latin  and  Lutheran  churches, 
agreed  Avith  the  Jews  in  uniting  the  first  and  second  command- 
ments ;  but  differed  from  them  in  dividing  the  tenth.  There  is, 
however,  a  difference  as  to  the  mode  of  division.  Augustine 
followed  the  text  as  given  in  Deuteronomy,  and  made  the  words, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife ; "  the  ninth,  and 
the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house,"  etc., 
the  tenth  commandment.  This  division  was  necessitated  by  the 
union  of  the  first  and  second,  and  justified  by  Augustine  on  the 
ground  that  the  "  cupido  impura?  voluptatis  "  is  a  distinct  of- 
fence from  the  "  cupido  impuri  lucri."  The  Romish  Church,  how- 
ever, adheres  to  the  text  as  given  in  Exodus,  and  makes  the 
clause,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house,"  the  ninth, 
and  what  follows,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife, 
nor  his  man  servant,  nor  his  maid  servant,"  etc.,  the  tenth 
com  mandment. 

The  third  method  of  arrangement  is  that  adopted  by  Jose- 
phus,  Philo,  and  Origen,  and  accepted  by  the  Greek  Church, 
and  also  by  the  Latin  until  the  time  of  Augustine.  At  the 
Reformation  it  was  adopted  by  the  Reformed,  and  has  the  sanc- 
tion of  almost  all  modern  theologians.  According  to  this  ar- 
rangement, the  first  commandment  forbids  the  worship  of  false 

VOL,    UI.  18 


274  PART  m.  Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

gods  ;  the  second,  tlie  use  of  idols  in  divine  worship.     The  com- 
mand, "  Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  is  taken  as  one  commandment. 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  there  are  two  tables  of  the  dec- 
alogue ;  the  one  containing  the  precepts  concerning  our  duties  to 
God,  and  the  other  those  which  concern  oiu'  duties  to  our  fellow- 
men.  Philo  referred  five  commands  to  each  table,  as  he  regarded 
reverence  to  parents,  enjoined  in  the  filth,  as  a  religious  rather 
than  a  moral  duty.  Those  who  unite  the  first  and  second,  and 
divide  the  tenth,  refer  three  commandments  to  the  first  table  and 
seven  to  the  second.  According  to  the  third  arrangement  men- 
tioned above,  there  are  four  in  the  first,  and  six  in  the  second. 
The  only  objection  urged  against  this  is  founded  on  the  symbolism 
of  numbers.  Three  and  seven  among  the  Jews  are  sacred  and 
significant ;  four  and  six  are  not. 

Arguments  for  the  Arrangement  adopted  hy  the  Reformed. 

There  are  two  questions  to  be  determined.  First,  should  the 
commandments  concerning  idolatry  be  imited  or  separated  ?  In 
favour  of  considering  them  two  distinct  commandments,  it  may 
be  urged,  (1.)  That  all  the  way  through  the  decalogue,  a  new 
command  is  mtroduced  by  a  positive  injunction  or  prohibition : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  ; " 
"  Thou  shalt  not  steal ;  "  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  etc.  This  is 
the  way  in  which  new  commands  are  introduced.  The  fact, 
therefore,  that  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods,"  is 
distinguished  by  the  repetition  of  the  mj  unction,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
make  mito  thee  any  graven  image,"  is  an  indication  that  they 
were  intended  as  different  commands.  The  tenth  commandment 
is  indeed  an  exception  to  this  rule,  but  the  principle  holds  good  in 
every  other  case.  (2.)  The  thmgs  forbidden  are  in  their  nature 
distinct.  Worshippmg  false  gods  is  one  thing ;  using  images  in 
divine  worship  is  another.  They  therefore  called  for  separate 
prohibitions.  (3.)  These  offences  are  not  only  different  m  their 
own  nature,  but  they  differed  also  m  the  apprehension  of  the 
Jews.  The  Jews  regarded  worshipping  false  gods,  and  usmg  im- 
ages in  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  as  very  different  things. 
They  were  severely  punished  for  both  offences.  Both  external 
and  internal  considerations,  therefore,  are  in  favour  of  retammg 
the  division  which  has  been  so  long  and  so  extensively  adopted  in 
the  Church. 

The  second  question  concerns  the  division  of  the  tenth  com- 
mandment.    It  is  admitted  that  there  are  ten  commandments. 


§3.]  PREFACE   TO   THE   COMMANDMENTS.  275 

If,  therefore,  the  two  commands,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods," 
and  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  any  graven  unage,"  are  distmet,  there 
is  no  room  for  the  question  whether  the  command  agamst  coveting 
should  be  divided.  There  is,  moreover,  no  pretext  for  such  divis- 
ion, unless  we  follow  the  order  given  in  Deuteronomy,  which  puts 
the  words,  "  Neither  shalt  thou  desire  thy  neighbour's  wife,"  be- 
fore the  words,  "  Neither  shalt  thou  covet  thy  neighbour's  house, 
his  field,"  etc.,  etc.  As  coveting  a  man's  wife  is  a  different  of- 
fence, or  at  least  a  different  form  of  a  general  offence,  from  covetmg 
his  house  or  land,  if  the  order  given  in  Deuteronomy  be  considered 
authoritative,  there  might  be  some  reason  for  the  separation.  But 
if  the  order  given  in  Exodus  be  adhered  to,  no  such  reason  exists. 
The  thing  forbidden  is  cupidity,  whatever  be  its  object.  That  the 
order  given  in  Exodus  is  authoritative  may  be  argued,  (1.)  Be- 
cause the  law  as  there  given  was  not  only  the  first  chronologically, 
but  also  was  solemnly  announced  from  Mount  Sinai.  (2.)  The  re- 
cension given  in  Deuteronomy  differs  from  the  other  in  many  un- 
important particulars.  If  the  order  m  Avhicli  the  objects  of  cupidity 
are  mentioned  be  a  matter  of  mdifference,  then  the  diversity  is  a 
matter  of  no  consequence.  But  if  it  be  made  a  matter  of  impor- 
tance, controlling  the  order  and  interpretation  of  the  command- 
ments, then  it  is  hard  to  account  for  it.  There  is,  therefore,  every 
reason  for  regarding  it  as  one  of  those  diversities  which  were  not 
intended  to  be  significant.  (3.)  The  distinction  is  nowhere  else 
recognized  in  Scripture.  On  the  contrary,  the  command,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet,"  is  elsewhere  given  as  one  command.  Paul,  in 
Romans  vii.  7,  says  :  "  I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the  law :  for 
I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not 
covet."  And  in  Romans  xiii.  9,  in  enumerating  the  laws  forbid- 
ding sins  agamst  our  neighbour,  Paul  gives  as  one  command, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet."  (4.)  Our  Lord  refers  the  sin  of  "  covet- 
ing a  man's  wife  "  to  the  seventh  commandment.  If  included  un- 
der that,  it  would  be  incongruous  and  out  of  harmony  with  the 
context,  to  make  it  a  distinct  commandment  by  itself. 

§  3.  Preface  to  the  Ten  Commandments. 

"  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  gods  before  me."  Theism  and  Monotheism,  the  foundation 
of  all  rehgion,  are  taught  in  these  words.  The  first  clause  is  the 
preface  or  mtroduction  to  the  decalogue.  It  presents  the  ground 
of  obhgation  and  the  special  motive  by  which  obedience  is  en- 


276  PART  m.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

forced.  It  is  because  the  commandments  wliicli  follow  are  the 
words  of  God  that  they  bind  the  conscience  of  all  those  to  whom 
they  are  addressed.  It  is  because  they  are  the  words  of  the  cov- 
enant God  and  Redeemer  of  his  people  that  we  are  specially 
bound  to  render  them  obedience. 

Histor}'  seems  to  prove  that  the  question  whether  the  Infinite 
is  a  person  cannot  be  satisfactorily  answered  by  the  unassisted 
reason  of  man.  The  historical  fact  is,  that  the  great  majority  of 
those  who  have  sought  the  solution  of  that  question  on  philosoph- 
ical principles  have  answered  it  in  the  negative.  It  is  impossible, 
therefore,  duly  to  estimate  the  importance  of  the  truth  mvolved  in 
the  use  of  the  pronoun  "  I  "  in  these  words.  It  is  a  person  who  is 
here  presented.  Of  that  person  it  is  affirmed,  fu'st,  that  He  is  Je- 
hovah ;  and  secondly,  that  He  is  the  covenant  God  of  his  people. 

In  the  first  place,  in  calling  himseK  Jehovah,  God  reveals  that 
He  is  the  person  known  to  his  people  by  that  name,  and  that  He 
is  m  his  nature  all  that  that  name  imports.  The  etymology  and 
signification  of  the  name  Jehovah  seem  to  be  given  by  God  Him- 
self in  Exodus  iii.  13,  14,  where  it  is  written,  "  Moses  said  mito 
God,  Behold,  when  I  come  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  shall 
say  unto  them.  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me  unto  you  ; 
and  they  shall  say  to  me.  What  is  his  name  ?  what  shall  I  say 
unto  them,  and  God  said  mito  Moses,  I  AM  that  I  AM  :  and  he 
said.  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  AM  hath 
sent  me  unto  you." 

Jehovah,  therefore,  is  the  I  AM  ;  a  person  always  existing  and 
always  the  same.  Self -existence,  eternity,  and  immutabiUty  are 
included  in  the  signification  of  the  word.  This  being  the  case, 
the  name  Jehovah  is  presented  as  the  ground  of  confidence  to  the 
people  of  God ;  as  in  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  40,  and  Isaiah  xl.  28, 
"  Hast  thou  not  known  ?  hast  thou  not  heard,  that  the  everlasting 
God,  Jehovah,  the  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  fainteth  not, 
neither  is  weary  ?  there  is  no  searching  of  his  understanding." 
These  natural  attributes,  however,  would  be  no  ground  of  con- 
fidence if  not  associated  with  moral  excellence.  He  who  as  Jeho- 
vah is  declared  to  be  infinite,  eternal,  and  immutable  in  his  being, 
is  no  less  infinite,  eternal,  and  immutable  in  his  knowledge,  wis- 
dom, holiness,  goodness,  and  truth.  Such  is  the  Person  whose  com- 
mands are  recorded  in  the  decalogue. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  not  only  the  nature  of  the  Being  who 
speaks,  but  the  relation  in  which  He  stands  to  his  people  that  is 
here  revealed.     "  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God."    The  word  God  has  a 


§4.]  THE   FIRST   COMMANDMENT.  277 

definite  meaning  from  wliicli  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  depart. 
We  may  not  substitute  for  the  idea  wbicli  the  word  in  Scripture 
and  in  ordinary  language  is  intended  to  express,  any  arbitrary 
philosophical  notion  of  our  own.  God  is  the  Being,  who,  because 
He  is  all  that  the  word  Jehovah  implies,  is  the  proper  object  of 
worship,  that  is,  of  all  the  religious  affections,  and  of  their  appro- 
priate expression.  He  is,  therefore,  the  only  appropriate  object 
of  supreme  love,  adoration,  gratitude,  confidence,  and  submission. 
Him  we  are  bound  to  trust  and  to  obey. 

Jehovah  is  not  only  God,  but  He  says  to  his  people  collectively 
and  individually,  "  I  am  thy  God."  That  is,  not  only  the  God 
whom  his  people  are  to  acknowledge  and  worship,  but  who  has 
entered  into  covenant  with  them ;  promising  to  be  their  God,  to 
be  all  that  God  can  be  to  his  creatures  and  children,  on  condition 
that  they  consent  to  be  his  people.  The  special  covenant  which 
God  formed  with  Abraham,  and  which  was  solemnly  renewed  at 
Mount  Sinai,  was  that  He  would  give  to  the  children  of  Abraham 
the  land  of  Palestine  as  their  possession  and  bless  them  in  that 
inheritance  on  condition  that  they  kept  the  laws  delivered  to  them 
by  his  servant  Moses.  And  the  covenant  which  He  has  made 
with  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  is  that  He  will  be  their 
God  for  time  and  eternity  on  condition  that  they  acknowledge, 
receive,  and  trust  his  only  begotten  Son,  the  promised  seed  of 
Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed. 
And  as  in  this  passage  the  redemption  of  the  Hebrews  from  their 
bondage  in  Egypt  is  referred  to  as  the  pledge  of  God's  fidehty  to 
his  promise  to  Abraham,  and  the  special  ground  of  the  obHgation 
of  the  Hebrews  to  acknowledge  Jehovah  as  their  God ;  so  the 
mission  of  the  Eternal  Son  for  the  redemption  of  the  world  is  at 
once  the  pledge  of  God's  fidelity  to  the  promise  made  to  our  first 
parents  after  their  fall,  and  the  special  ground  of  our  allegiance  to 
our  covenant  God  and  Father. 

§  4.  The  First  Commandment. 

The  first  commandment  is,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  me."  I,  that  is,  the  person  whose  name,  and  nature,  and 
whose  relation  to  his  people  are  given  in  the  preceding  words, 
and  I  only,  shall  be  recognized  by  you  as  God. 

This  command,  therefore,  includes,  first,  the  injunction  to  rec- 
ognize Jehovah  as  the  true  God.  As  this  recognition  must  be 
intelligent  and  sincere,  it  includes,  — 

1.  Knowledge.    We  must  know  who,  or  what  Jehovah  is.    Thia 


278  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

implies  a  laiowledge  of  his  attributes,  of  his  relation  to  the  world 
as  its  creator,  preserver,  and  governor,  and  especially  his  relation 
to  his  rational  creatures  and  to  his  own  chosen  people.  This  of 
course  involves  a  knowledge  of  our  relation  to  Him  as  dependent 
and  responsible  creatures  and  as  the  objects  of  his  redeeming  love. 

2.  Faith.  We  must  believe  that  God  is,  and  that  He  is  what 
He  declares  HimseK  to  be ;  and  that  we  are  his  creatures  and  his 
children. 

3.  Confession.    It  is  not  enough  that  we  secretly  in  our  hearts 
'recognize  Jehovah  as  the  true  God ;  we  must  openly  and  under 

all  circumstances  and  despite  of  all  opposition,  whether  from  mag- 
istrates or  from  philosophers,  avow  our  faith  in  Him  as  the  only 
living  and  true  God.  This  confession  must  be  made,  not  only  by 
the  avowal  of  the  lips  as  when  we  repeat  the  Creed,  but  by 
all  appropriate  acts  of  worship  in  public  and  private,  by  praise, 
prayer,  and  thanksgiving. 

4.  As  the  law  is  spiritual,  not  only  as  bearing  the  impress  of 
the  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  holy,  just,  and  good,  but  also  as  taking 
cognizance  of  the  inward  as  well  as  of  the  outward  Hfe,  of  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  as  well  as  of  external  acts,  this  recognition 
of  Jehovah  as  our  God  includes  the  exercise  towards  Him  of  all 
the  religious  aJEfections ;  of  love,  fear,  reverence,  gratitude,  sub- 
mission, and  devotion.  And  as  this  is  not  an  occasional  duty  to 
be  performed  at  certain  times  and  places,  but  one  of  perpetual 
obhgation,  a  habitual  state  of  mind  is  the  thing  required.  The 
recosnition.  of  Jehovah  as  our  God  involves  a  constant  sense  of 
his  presence,  of  his  majesty,  of  his  goodness,  and  of  his  providence, 
and  of  om-  dependence,  responsibihty,  and  obligation.  We  are  to 
have  God  always  before  our  eyes  ;  to  walk  and  live  with  Him, 
havinor  a  constant  reference  to  his  will  in  the  conduct  of  our  inward 
and  outward  life ;  recognizing  continually  his  hand  in  everything 
that  befalls  us,  submitting  to  all  his  chastisements  and  grateful 
for  all  his  mercies. 

The  second  or  negative  aspect  of  the  command  is  the  condem- 
nation of  the  failure  to  recognize  Jehovah  as  the  true  God  ;  fail- 
ing to  believe  in  his  existence  and  attributes,  in  his  government 
and  authority ;  failing  to  confess  him  before  men  ;  and  failing  to 
render  him  the  inward  reverence  and  the  outward  homage  which 
are  his  due,  that  is,  the  first  commandment  forbids  Atheism 
whether  theoretical  or  practical.  It  moreover  forbids  the  recog- 
nition of  any  other  than  Jehovah  as  God.  This  includes  the 
prohibition  of  ascribing  to  any  other  being  divine  attributes 


§4.]  THE   FIRST   COMMANDMENT.  279 

rendering  to  any  creature  the  homage  or  obedience  due  to  God 
alone ;  or  exercising  towards  any  otiier  person  or  object  those 
feelings  of  love,  confidence,  and  submission  which  belong  of  right 
only  to  God. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  violation  of  this  commandment  either  to  fail 
in  the  full  and  sincere  recognition  of  God  as  God,  or  to  give  to 
any  creature  the  place  in  our  confidence  and  love  due  to  God 
alone. 

This  the  Chief  of  all  the  Commandments. 

The  duty  enjoined  in  this  commandment  is  the  highest  duty  of 
man.  It  is  proved  to  be  so  in  the  estimation  of  God  by  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  Christ.  When  asked,  "  Which  is  the  great 
commandment  in  the  law,"  He  answered,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  mth  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment."  (Matt. 
xxii.  37,  38.)  It  is  so  also  in  the  sight  of  reason.  That  infinite 
excellence  should  be  reverenced  ;  that  He  who  is  the  author  of 
our  being  and  giver  of  all  our  mercies ;  on  whom  we  are  abso- 
lutely dependent ;  to  whom  we  are  responsible  ;  who  is  the  rightful 
possessor  of  our  souls  and  bodies ;  and  whose  will  is  the  highest 
rule  of  duty,  should  be  duly  recognized  by  his  creatures,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  must  be  the  highest  duty  of  all  rational  beings. 
It  is,  moreover,  the  first  and  greatest  of  the  commandments  if 
measured  by  the  influence  which  obedience  to  its  injunction  has 
upon  the  soul  itself.  It  places  the  creature  in  its  proper  relation 
to  its  Creator  on  which  its  o\vn  excellence  and  well-being  depend. 
It  purifies,  ennobles,  and  exalts  the  soul.  It  calls  into  exercise 
all  the  higher  and  nobler  attributes  of  our  nature  ;  and  assimilates 
man  to  the  angels  who  surround  the  throne  of  God  in  heaven. 
The  preeminence  of  this  commandment  is  further  evident  from 
the  fact  that  religion,  or  the  duty  we  owe  to  God,  is  the  founda- 
tion of  morality.  Without  the  former,  the  latter  cannot  exist. 
This  is  plain,  (1.)  From  the  nature  of  the  case.  Morality  is 
the  conformity  of  an  agent's  character  and  conduct  to  the  moral 
law.  But  the  moral  law  is  the  revealed  will  of  God.  If  there 
be  no  God,  there  is  no  moral  law ;  and  if  a  man  does  not  ac- 
knowledge or  recognize  God,  there  is  no  higher  law  than  his  own 
reason  to  which  he  can  feel  any  obligation  to  be  conformed. 
(2.)  It  is  a  principle  of  our  nature  that  if  a  man  disregard  a  higher 
obligation,  he  will  not  be  controlled  by  a  lower.  This  principle 
was  recognized  by  our  Lord  when  He  said,  "  He  that  is  faithful 
in  that  which  is  least,  is  faithful  also  in  much  ;  and  he  that  is 


2S0  PART  III.     Cn.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

unjust  in  tlie  least,  is  unjust  also  in  much."  (Luke  xvi.  10.)  Thia 
involves  the  converse  :  He  that  is  unfaithful  in  much,  is  unfaith- 
ful in  that  which  is  least.  (3.)  It  is  the  testimony  of  experience 
that  where  religion  has  lost  its  hold  on  the  minds  of  the  people, 
there  the  moral  law  is  trampled  under  foot.  The  criminal  and 
dangerous  class  in  every  community  consists  of  those  who  have 
no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes.  (4.)  It  is  the  secret  conviction  of 
every  man  that  his  duty  to  God  is  his  highest  duty,  as  is  evinced  by 
the  fact  that  the  charge  of  atheism  is  one  from  which  the  human 
soul  instinctively  recoils.  It  is  felt  to  be  a  charge  of  the  utter  de- 
gradation, or  of  the  deadness  of  all  that  is  highest  and  noblest  in 
the  nature  of  man.  (5.)  The  most  decisive  and  solemn  evidence  of 
this  truth,  however,  is  to  be  found  in  the  revealed  purpose  of 
God  to  forsake  those  who  forsake  Him  ;  to  give  up  to  the  uncon- 
strained control  of  their  evil  passions,  those  who  cast  off  their 
allegiance  to  Him.  The  Apostle  says  of  the  heathen  world  that 
it  was  "  Because  that  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him 
not  as  God,  neither  were  thanlcful,  ....  God  gave  them  up  unto 
vile  affections."  (Rom.  i.  21,  26.)  And  again  in  ver.  28,  "  As 
they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave 
them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those  things  which  are  not 
convenient ;  being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  fornication, 
wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness  ;  full  of  envy,  murder, 
debate,  deceit,  malignity  ;  whisperers,  backbiters,  haters  of  God, 
despiteful,  proud,  boasters,  inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to 
parents,  without  understanding,  covenant  breakers,  without  natu- 
ral affection,  implacable,  unmerciful."  Such  are  the  natural,  the 
actual,  the  inevitable,  and  the  judicially  ordained  effects  of  men's 
refusing  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge. 

Not"svithstanding  all  this  we  see  multitudes  of  men  of  whom  it 
may  be  said  that  God  is  not  in  all  their  thoughts.  They  never 
think  of  Him.  They  do  not  recognize  his  providence.  They  do 
not  refer  to  his  will  as  a  rule  of  conduct.  They  do  not  feel  their 
responsibility  to  Him  for  what  they  think  or  do.  They  do  not 
worship  Him  ;  nor  thank  Him  for  their  mercies.  They  are  "with- 
out God  in  the  world.  Yet  they  think  well  of  themselves.  They 
are  not  aware  of  the  dreadful  guilt  involved  in  thus  forgetting  God, 
in  habitually  failing  to  discharge  the  first  and  highest  duty  that 
rests  on  rational  creatures.  Self-respect  or  regard  to  public  oj^in- 
jon  often  renders  such  men  decorous  in  their  lives.  But  they  are 
really  dead  while  they  live  ;  and  they  have  no  security  against 
the  powers  of  darkness.     It  is  painful  also  to  see  that  scientific 


§5.]  INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  281 

men  and  pliilosophers  so  often  endeavour  to  invalidate  the  argu- 
ments for  the  existence  of  God,  and  advance  opinions  inconsistent 
with  Theism ;  arguing,  as  they  in  many  cases  do,  to  prove  either 
that  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  any  power  in  the 
universe  otiier  than  of  physical  force,  or  that  no  knowledge,  con- 
sciousness, or  voluntary  action  can  be  predicated  of  an  infinite 
Being.  This  is  done  in  apparent  unconsciousness  that  they  are 
midermining  the  foundations  of  all  religion  and  morality ;  or  that 
they  are  exhibiting  a  state  of  mind  which  the  Scriptures  pro- 
nounce worthy  of  reprobation. 

§  5.  The  Invocation  of  Saints  and  Angels. 
Saints  and  angels,  and  especially  the  Virgin  Mary,  are  confess- 
edly objects  of  worship  in  the  Romish  Church.  The  word  "  wor- 
ship," however,  means  properly  to  respect  or  honour.  It  is  used 
to  express  both  the  inward  sentiment  and  its  outward  manifesta- 
tion. This  old  sense  of  the  word  is  still  retained  in  courts  of  law 
in  which  the  judge  is  addressed  as  "  Your  Worsliip,"  or  as  "  wor- 
shipful." The  Hebrew  word  n;j~rirn  and  the  Greek  -n-poa-Kvi^io), 
often  translated  in  the  Enghsh  version  by  the  word  "  worship," 
mean  simply  to  bow  down,  or  prostrate  one's  self.  They  are 
used  whether  the  person  to  whom  the  homage  is  rendered  be  an 
equal,  an  earthly  superior,  or  God  Himself.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
from  the  use  of  any  of  these  words  that  the  nature  of  the  homage 
rendered  can  be  determined.  Romanists  are  accustomed  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  cultus  civilis  due  to  earthly  superiors  ; 
SovAeia  due  to  saints  and  angels  ;  virep^ovXda  due  to  the  Virgin 
Mary  ;  and  Xarpda  due  to  God  alone.  These  distinctions,  how- 
ever, are  of  little  use.  They  afford  no  criterion  by  which  to  dis- 
tinguish between  ZovXua  and  v7rep8ovXeta  and  between  v-n-cpSovXiLa  and 
Xarpeta.  The  important  principle  is  this :  Any  homage,  internal 
or  external,  which  involves  the  ascription  of  divine  attributes  to 
its  object,  if  that  object  be  a  creature,  is  idolatrous.  Whether 
the  homage  paid  by  Romanists  to  saints  and  angels  be  idolatrous 
is  a  question  of  fact  rather  than  of  theory  ;  that  is,  it  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  homage  actually  rendered,  and  not  by  that 
which  is  prescribed.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  the  saints  are  not  to 
be  honoured  as  God  is  honoured ;  that  He  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  original  source  and  giver  of  all  good,  and  they  as  mere  inter- 
cessors, and  as  channels  of  divine  communications  ;  but  this  does 
not  alter  the  case  if  the  homage  rendered  them  assumes  that  they 
possess  the  attributes  of  God ;  and  if  they  are  to  the  people  the^ 
objects  of  religious  affection  and  confidence. 


282  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

What  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  on  this  subject  may  be 
learned  from  the  following  passages,  from  the  decisions  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  from  the  Roman  Catechism,  and  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  leading  theologians  of  that  Church  :  ^  "  Mandat  sancta 
synodus  omnibus  episcopis  ....  ut  ...  .  fideles  diligenter  in- 
struant,  docentes  eos,  sanctos,  una  cum  Christo  regnantes,  ora- 
tiones  suas  pro  hominibus  Deo  offerre  ;  bonum,  atque  utile  esse 
suppliciter  eos  invocare ;  et  ob  beneficia  impetranda  a  Deo  per 
filium  ejus  Jesus  Christum,  Dominum  nostrum,  qui  solus  noster 
redemptor  et  salvator  est,  ad  eorum  orationes,  opem  auxiliumque 
confugere :  illos  vero,  qui  negant  sanctos,  aeterna  felicitate  in  coelo 
fruentes,  invocandos  esse  ;  aut  qui  asserunt,  vel  illos  pro  homini- 
bus non  orare  ;  vel  eorum,  ut  pro  nobis  etiam  singulis  orent,  invo- 
cation em  esse  idolatriam  ;  vel  pugnare  cum  verbo  Dei ;  adversa- 
rique  honori  unius  mediatoris  Dei  et  hominum  Jesu  Christi ;  vel 
stultum  esse  in  coelo  regnantibus  voce,  vel  mente  supplicare ;  im- 
pie  sentire."  "  Et  quamvis  in  honorem  et  memoriam  sanctorum 
■nonnullas  interdum  missas  ecclesia  celebrare  consueverit ;  non 
tamen  illis  sacrificium  offerri  docet,  sed  Deo  soli,  qui  illos  coro- 
navit ;  unde  nee  sacerdos  dicere  solet,  offero  tibi  sacrificium  Petre, 
vel  Paule  ;  sed  Deo  de  illorum  victoriis  gratias  agens,  eorum  pa- 
trocinia  implorat,  ut  ipsi  pro  nobis  intercedere  dignentur  in  coehs, 
quorum  memoriam  facimus  in  terris."  ^ 

The  Roman  Catechism  ^  teaches  the  same  doctrine. 

"  Invocandi  sunt  [angeli  eorum] ;  quod  et  perpetuo  Deum  intu- 
entur  et  patrocinium  salutis  nostra,  sibi  delatum,  libentissime  sus- 
cipiunt."  This  invocation,  it  says,  does  not  conflict  with  the  law 
"  de  uno  Deo  colendo." 

Thomas  Aquinas  says :  "  Quanquam  solus  Deus  sit  orandus,  ut 
vel  gratiam  vel  gloriam  nobis  donet ;  sanctos  nihilominus  viros 
orare  expedit,  ut  illorum  precibus  et  meritis,  nostras  orationes  sor- 
tiantur  effectum."  * 

On  this  subject  Bellarmin  lays  down  the  following  propositions, 
(1.)  "  Non  licet  a  Sanctis  petere,  ut  nobis  tanquam  auctores  divi- 
norum  beneficiorum,  gloriam,  vel  gratiam  aliaque  ad  beatitudinem 
media  concedunt."  This,  however,  he  virtually  nullifies,  wheji  he 
adds,  "  Est  tamen  notandum,  cum  dicimus,  non  debere  peti  a 
Sanctis,  nisi  ut  orent  pro  nobis,  nos  non  agere  de  verbis,  sed  de 

1  Concilii  Tridentini,  sess.  xxv. 

2  Jbid.  sess.  xxii.  caput  iii. 

8  III.  ii.  qu.  4  [xix.  10].  See  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symholici,  Gottingen,  1846,  pp.  93,  78,  1^ 
479. 
*  Summa,  ii.  Li.  qutest.  83,  art.  4,  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  153,  a,  of  third  Bet. 


§5.]  INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  283 

sensu  verborum  ;  nam  quantum  ad  veiua,  licet  dicere,  S.  Petre 
miserere  milii,  salva  me,  aperi  mihi  aditum  coeli :  item,  da  mihi 
sanitatem  corporis,  da  patientiam,  da  mihi  fortitudinem."  (2.) 
"  Sancti  non  sunt  immediati  intercessores  nostri  apud  Deum,  sed 
quidquid  a  Deo  nobis  impetrant,  per  Christum  impetrant."  (3.) 
"  Sancti  orant  pro  nobis  saltem  in  genere,  secundum  Scripturas." 
(4.)  "  Sancti  qui  regnant  cum  Christo,  pro  nobis  orant,  non  solum 
in  genere,  sed  etiam  in  particulari."  ^  As  to  the  question,  How 
the  saints  in  heaven  can  know  what  men  on  earth  desire  of  them, 
he  says  four  answers  are  given.  First,  some  say  that  the  angels, 
who  are  constantly  ascending  to  heaven  and  thence  descending  to 
us,  communicate  to  the  saints  the  prayers  of  the  people.  Sec- 
ondly, others  say,  "  Sanctorum  animas,  sicut  etiam  angelos,  mira 
quadam  celeritate  naturas,  quodammodo  esse  ubique ;  et  per  se 
audire  preces  supplicantium."  Thirdly,  others  again  say,  "  Sanc- 
tos  videre  in  Deo  omnia  a  principio  suae  beatitudinis,  qu^e  ad 
ipsos  aliquo  modo  pertinent,  et  proinde  etiam  orationes  nostras 
ad  se  directas."  Fourthly,  others  say  that  God  reveals  to  them 
the  prayers  of  the  people.  As  on  earth  God  revealed  the  future 
to  the  prophets  and  gives  to  men  at  times  the  power  to  read  the 
thoughts  of  others,  so  He  can  reveal  to  the  saints  in  heaven  the 
wants  and  prayers  of  those  who  call  upon  them.  This  last  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty  Bellarmin  himself  prefers.^ 

The   objections   which   Protestants   are   accustomed   to  urge 
against  this  invocation  of  saints  are,  — 

1.  That  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  superstitious.  It  requires 
faith  without  evidence.  It  assumes  not  only  that  the  dead  are  in 
a  conscious  state  of  existence  in  another  world ;  and  that  departed 
believers  belong  to  the  same  living  mystical  body  of  Christ,  of 
which  their  brethren  still  on  earth  are  members,  both  of  which 
Protestants,  on  the  authority  of  God's  word,  cheerfully  admit  ; 
but  it  assumes,  without  any  evidence  from  Scripture  or  experience, 
that  the  spirits  of  the  dead  are  accessible  to  those  who  are  still  in 
the  flesh  ;  that  they  are  near  us,  capable  of  hearing  our  prayers, 
knowing  our  thoughts,  and  answering  our  requests.  The  Church 
or  the  soul  is  launched  on  an  ocean  of  fantasies  and  follies,  with- 
out a  compass,  if  either  suffers  itself  to  believe  without  evidence ; 
then  there  is  nothing  in  astrology,  alchemy,  or  demonology  which 
may  not  be  received  as  true,  to  perplex,  to  pervert,  or  to  torment. 

^  De  Ecclesia  Triumphante,  lib.  i.,  Be  Sanctorum  Beatitudine,  cap.  xvii.  xvi'". ;  Digpm- 
tationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  ii.  pp.  718-721. 
2  Ut  supra,  cap.  xx.  p.  735. 


284  PART  in.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

2.  The  whole  thing  is  a  deceit  and  ilkision.  If  in  fact  departed 
saints  are  not  authorized  and  not  enabled  to  hear  and  answer  the 
prayers  of  suppliants  on  earth,  then  the  people  are  in  the  condi- 
tion of  those  who  trust  in  gods  who  cannot  save,  who  have  eyes 
that  see  not,  and  ears  that  cannot  hear.  That  the  saints  have  no 
such  office  as  the  theory  and  practice  of  invocation  suppose  is  plain, 
because  the  fact  if  true  cannot  be  known  except  by  divine  revela- 
tion. But  no  such  revelation  exists.  It  is  a  purely  superstitious 
belief,  without  the  support  of  either  Scripture  or  reason.  The 
conjectural  methods  suggested  by  Bellarmin  of  explaining  how 
the  saints  may  be  cognizant  of  the  wants  and  wishes  of  men,  is  a 
confession  that  nothing  is  known  or  can  be  known  on  the  subject ; 
and,  therefore,  that  the  invocation  of  the  saints  has  no  Scriptural 
or  rational  foundation.'  If  this  be  so,  then  how  dreadfully  are 
the  people  deluded !  How  fearful  the  consequences  of  turning 
their  eyes  and  hearts  from  the  one  divine-  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  who  ever  hves  to  make  intercession  for  us,  and  whom 
the  Father  heareth  always,  and  causing  them  to  direct  their 
prayers  to  ears  which  never  hear,  and  to  place  their  hopes  in  arms 
which  never  save.  It  is  turning  from  the  fountain  of  living 
waters,  to  cisterns  which  can  hold  no  water. 

3.  The  invocation  of  saints  as  practised  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  idolatrous.  Even  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  theory  as  ex- 
pounded by  theologians  is  free  from  this  charge,  it  remains  true 
that  the  practice  involves  all  the  elements  of  idolat^)^  Blessings 
are  sought  from  the  saints  which  God  only  can  bestow  ;  and  attri- 
butes are  assumed  to  belong  to  them  which  belong  to  God  alone. 
Every  kind  of  blessing,  temporal  and  spiritual,  is  sought  at  their 
hands,  and  sought  directly  from  them  as  the  givers.  This  Bellar- 
min admits  so  far  as  the  words  employed  are  concerned.  He 
says  it  is  right  to  say  :  "  Holy  Peter,  save  me  ;  open  to  me  the 
gates  of  heaven  ;  give  me  repentance,  courage,"  etc.  God  alone 
can  grant  these  blessings  ;  the  people  are  told  to  seek  them  at  the 
hands  of  creatures.  This  is  idolatry.  Practically  it  is  taken  for 
granted  that  the  saints  are  everywhere  present,  that  they  can 
hear  prayers  addressed  to  them  from  all  parts  of  the  earth  at  the 
same  time  ;  that  they  know  our  thoughts  and  unexpressed  desires. 
This  is  to  assume  that  they  possess  divine  attributes.  In  fact, 
therefore,  the  saints  are  the  gods  whom  the  people  worship,  whom 
they  trust,  and  who  are  the  objects  of  the  religious  affections. 

The  polytheism  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  in  many  respects 
analogous  to  that  of  heathen  Rome.     In  both  cases  we  find  goda 


§5.]  INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  285 

many  and  lords  many.  In  both  cases  either  imagmary  beings  are 
the  objects  of  worship,  or  imaginary  powers  and  attributes  are 
ascribed  to  them.  In  both  cases,  also,  the  homage  rendered,  the 
blessings  sought,  the  prerogatives  attributed  to  the  objects  of 
worship  and  the  affections  exercised  toward  them,  involve  the  as- 
sumption that  they  are  truly  divine.  In  both  cases  the  hearts  of 
the  people,  their  confidence  and  hopes,  are  turned  from  the  Crea- 
tor to  the  creature.  There  is  indeed,  however,  this  great  differ- 
ence between  the  two  cases.  The  objects  of  heathen  worship 
were  unholy ;  the  objects  of  worship  in  the  Church  of  Rome  are 
regarded  as  ideals  of  holiness.  This,  in  one  view,  makes  an  im- 
mense difference.  But  the  idolatry  is  in  either  case  the  same. 
For  idolatry  consists  in  paying  creatures  the  homage  due  to 
God. 

Mariolatry. 

The  mother  of  our  Lord  is  regarded  by  all  Christians  as 
"  blessed,"  as  "  the  most  highly  favoured  of  women."  No  mem- 
ber of  the  fallen  family  of  man  has  had  such  an  honour  as  she 
received  in  being  the  mother  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  The 
reverence  due  to  her  as  one  thus  highly  favoured  of  God,  and  as 
one  whose  heart  was  pierced  through  with  many  sorrows,  led  the 
way  to  her  being  regarded  as  the  ideal  of  all  female  grace  and 
excellence,  and  gradually  to  her  being  made  the  object  of  divine 
honours,  as  the  Church  lost  more  and  more  of  its  spirituahty. 

The  deification  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
was  a  slow  process.  The  first  step  was  the  assertion  of  her  per- 
petual virginity.  This  was  early  taken  and  generally  conceded. 
The  second  step  was  the  assertion  that  the  bu'th,  as  well  as  the 
conception  of  our  Lord,  was  supernatural.  The  tliird  was  the 
solemn,  authoritative  decision  by  the  ecumenical  council  of 
Ephesus,  A.  D.  431,  that  the  Vu-gin  Mary  was  the  "  Mother  of 
God."  On  this  decision  it  may  be  remarked,  (a.)  That  it  was 
rendered  rather  as  a  vindication  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  than 
as  an  exaltation  of  the  glory  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  It  had  its 
origin  in  the  Nestorian  controversy.  Nestorius  was  accused  of 
teaching  that  the  Logos  only  inhabited  the  man  Jesus,  whence  it 
was  inferred  that  he  held  that  the  person  born  of  the  Virgin  was 
simply  human.  It  was  to  emphasize  the  assertion  that  the 
"  person  "  thus  born  was  truly  divine  that  the  orthodox  insisted 
that  the  Virgin  should  be  called  the  Mother  of  God.  (6.)  There 
is  a  sense  in  which  the  designation  is  proper  and  according  to  the 
analogy  of  Scripture.     The  Virgin  was  the  Mother  of  Christ ; 


286  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the  law. 

Christ  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  :  therefore  she  was  the  Mother 
of  God.  The  infant  Saviour  was  a  di\'ine  person.  Christians  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  God  purchased  his  Church  with  his  own 
blood.  According  to  the  usage  of  Scripture,  the  person  of  Christ 
may  be  designated  from  one  nature,  when  the  predicate  belongs 
to  the  other.  He  may  be  called  the  Son  of  man  when  we  speak 
of  his  filling  immensity ;  and  He  may  be  called  God  when  we 
sjDeak  of  his  being  born.  (<?.)  Nevertheless,  although  the  designa- 
tion be  in  itself  justifiable,  in  the  state  of  feeling  which  then  per- 
vaded the  Church,  the  decision  of  the  Council  tended  to  increase 
the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  Virgin.  It  was  considered  by 
the  common  people  as  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  divinity. 
The  members  of  the  Council  were  escorted  from  their  place  of 
meeting  by  a  multitude  bearing  torches,  preceded  by  women 
bearing  censers  filled  with  burning  incense.  In  combating  the 
assumed  Nestorian  doctrine  of  two  persons  in  Christ,  there  was  a 
strong  tendency  to  the  opposite,  to  the  doctrine  of  Eutyches,  who 
held  that  there  was  in  our  Lord  but  one  nature.  According  to 
this  view  the  Virgin  might  be  regarded  as  the  Mother  of  God  in 
the  same  sense  that  any  ordinary  mother  is  the  parent  of  her 
child.  However  it  may  be  accounted  for,  the  fact  is  that  the  de- 
cision of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  marks  a  distinct  epoch  in  the 
progress  of  the  deification  of  the  Virgin. 

The  fourth  step  soon  followed  in  the  dedication  to  her  honour  of 
numerous  churches,  shrines,  and  festivals  ;  and  in  the  introduction 
of  solemn  offices  designed  for  public  and  private  worship  in  which 
she  was  solemnly  invoked.  No  limit  was  placed  to  the  titles  of 
honour  by  which  she  was  addressed  or  to  the  prerogatives  and 
powers  which  were  attributed  to  her.  She  was  declared  to  be 
deijicata.  She  was  called  the  Queen  of  .heaven.  Queen  of  queens  . 
said  to  be  exalted  above  all  principalities  and  powers ;  to  be 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  Chiist,  to  share  with  Him  in  the 
universal  and  absolute  power  committed  to  his  hands.  All  the 
blessings  of  salvation  were  sought  at  her  hands,  as  well  as  protec- 
tion from  all  enemies,  and  deliverance  from  all  evils.  Praj^ers, 
hymns,  and  doxologies  were  allowed  and  prescribed  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  her.  The  whole  Psalter  has  been  transformed  into  a 
book  of  praise  and  confession  to  the  Mother  of  Christ.  What  in 
the  Bible  is  said  to  God  and  of  God,  is  in  this  book  addressed  to 
the  Virgin.  In  the  First  Psalm,  for  example,  it  is  said,  "  Blessed 
is  the  man  who  walketh  not  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly,"  etc. 
In  the  Psalter  of  the  Virgin  it  reads,  "  Blessed  is  the  man  who 


§5.]  INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  287 

loveth  thy  name,  O  Virgin  Mary  ;  thy  grace  shall  comfort  his 
soul.  As  a  tree  irrigated  by  fountains  of  water,  he  shall  bring 
forth  the  richest  fruits  of  righteousness."  In  the  second  Psalm 
the  prayer  is  directed  to  the  Virgin  :  "  Protect  us  with  thy  right 
hand,  O  Mother  of  God,"  etc.  Ps.  ix.,  "  I  will  confess  to 
Thee,  O  Lady  (Domina)  ;  I  will  declare  among  the  people  thy 
praise  and  glory.  To  thee  belong  glory,  thanksgiving,  and  the 
voice  of  praise."  Ps.  xv.,  "  Preserve  me,  O  Lady,  for  I  have 
hoped  in  thee."  Ps.  xvii.,  "  I  will  love  thee  O  Queen  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  will  glorify  thy  name  among  the  Gentiles." 
Ps.  xviii,,  "  The  heavens  declare  thy  glory,  O  Virgin  Mary ; 
the  fragrance  of  thy  ointments  is  dispersed  among  all  nations." 
Ps.  xli.,  "  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water  brooks,  so 
panteth  my  soul  for  thy  love,  O  Holy  Virgin."  And  so  on  to  the 
end.  The  Virgin  is  throughout  addressed  as  the  Psalmist  ad- 
dressed God ;  and  the  blessings  which  he  sought  from  God,  the 
Romanist  is  taught  to  seek  from  her.^ 

In  hke  manner  the  most  holy  offices  of  the  Chui-ch  are  parodied. 
The  Te  Deum,  for  example,  is  turned  into  an  addi'css  to  the  Vir- 
gin. "  We  praise  thee.  Mother  of  God  ;  we  acknowledge  thee  to 
be  a  virgin.  All  the  earth  doth  worship  thee,  the  spouse  of  the 
eternal  Father.  All  the  angels  and  archangels,  all  thrones  and 
powers,  do  faithfully  serve  thee.  To  thee  all  angels  cry  aloud, 
with  a  never-ceasing  voice.  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Mary,  Mother  of 

God The  whole   court   of   heaven  doth  honour  thee  a^ 

queen.     The  holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world  doth  invoke 

and  praise  thee,  the  mother  of  divine  majesty Thou  sittest 

with  thy  Son  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father In  thee, 

sweet  Mary,  is  our  hope ;  defend  us  for  evermore.  Praise  be- 
cometh  thee  ;  empire  becometh  thee ;  virtue  and  glory  be  unto 
thee  for  ever  and  ever."  ^ 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  refer  to  the  Litanies  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  in  further  proof  of  the  idolatrous  worship  of  which  she  is 
the  object.  Those  litanies  are  prepared  in  the  form  usually  adopted 
in  the  worship  of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  containing  invocations,  dep- 
recations, intercessions,  and   supplications.     They   contain  such 

1  This  Psalter  is  published  under  the  title  Psalterium  Virginis  Marice,  a  Devoto  Doctors 
Sancto  Bonaventura  compilatum.  It  is  given  at  length  by  Chemnitz  in  his  Examen  Con- 
cilii  Tridentini,  edit.  Frankfort,  1574,  part  iii.  pp.  166-179.  Chemnitz  does  not  refer  its 
authorship  to  Bonaventura ;  but  gives  it  as  a  document  sanctioned  and  used  in  the  Church 
of   Rome. 

2  See  A  Church  Dictionary.  By  Walter  Farquhar  Hook,  D.  D.,  Vicar  of  Leeds. 
Sixth  edition.  Philadelphia,  1854,  article  Mariolatry.  Dr.  Hook  quotes  the  so-called 
"  Psalter  of  Bonaventura;  "  and  refers  to  Sancti  Bonaventurae  Opera,  torn.  vi.  part  ii.  from 
p.  466  to  473.  Fol.  Moguntite,  1609. 


288  PART  m.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

prayers  as  tlie  following  :  "  Peccatores,  te  rogamus  audi  nos  ;  Ut 
sanctam  Ecclesiam  piissima  conservare  Jigneris,  Ut  justis  gloriam, 
peccatoribus  gi-atiam  impetrare  digneris,  Ut  navigantibus  portum, 
infirmantibus  sanitatem,  tribvilatis  consolationem,  captivis  libe- 
rationem,  impetrare  digneris,  Ut  famulos  et  famulas  tuas  tibi 
devote  servientes,  consolare  digneris,  Ut  cunctum  populum  Cliris- 
tianum  filii  tui  pretioso  sanguine  redemptum,  conservare  digneris, 
Ut  cunctis  fidelibus  defunctis,  eternam  requiem  impetrare  digneris, 
Ut  nos  exaudire  digneris,  Mater  Dei,  Filia  Dei,  Sponsa  Dei,  Mater 
carissima,  Domina  nostra,  miserere,  et  dona  nobis  perpetuam 
pacem."  More  than  this  cannot  be  sought  at  the  hands  of  God 
or  Christ.  The  Virgin  Mary  is  to  her  worshippers  what  Christ  is 
to  us.  She  is  the  object  of  all  religious  affections  ;  the  ground  of 
confidence ;  and  the  source  whence  all  the  blessings  of  sal"«'ation 
are  expected  and  sought. 

There  was,  however,  always  an  undercurrent  of  opposition  to 
this  deification  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord.  This  became  more 
apparent  in  the  controversy  on  the  question  of  her  immaculate 
conception.  This  idea  was  never  broached  in  the  early  Church. 
The  first  form  in  which  the  doctrine  appeared  was,  that  from  the 
fact  that  God  says  of  Jeremiah,  "  Before  thou  camest  forth  out 
of  the  womb  I  sanctified  thee "  (Jer.  i.  5),  it  was  maintained 
that  the  same  might  be  said  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Jeremiah  indeed 
was  sanctified  before  birth,  in  the  sense  that  he  was  consecrated 
or  set  apart  in  the  purpose  of  God  to  the  prophetic  office  ;  whereas 
Mary,  it  was  held,  was  thus  sanctified  in  the  sense  of  being  made 
holy.  All  the  great  lights  of  the  Latin  Church,  Augustine, 
Anselm,  Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  held  that 
if  the  Virgin  Mary  were  not  a  partaker  of  the  sin  and  apostasy 
of  man,  she  could  not  be  a  partaker  of  redemption.  As  Thomas 
Aquinas,  and  after  him  the  Dominicans,  took  the  one  side  in  tliis 
controversy.  Duns  Scotus  and  the  Franciscans  took  the  other. 
The  public  feeling  was  in  favour  of  the  Franciscan  doctrine  of  the 
immaculate  conception.  Even  John  Gerson,  chancellor  of  the 
University  of  Paris,  distinguished  not  only  for  his  learning  but 
also  for  his  zeal  in  reforming  abuses,  in  1401  came  out  publicly  in 
support  of  that  view.  He  was,  however,  candid  enough  to  admit 
that  it  had  not  hitherto  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  But  he 
held  that  God  communicated  the  truth  gradually  to  the  Church  ; 
hence  Moses  knew  more  than  Abraham,  the  prophets  more  than 
Moses,  the  Apostles  more  than  the  prophets  ;  in  like  manner,  the 
Church  has  received   from  the  Spirit  of    God  many  truths  not 


§6.]  INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  289 

known  to  the  Apostles.  This  of  course  implies  the  rejection  of 
the  doctrine  of  tradition.  That  doctrine  is,  that  a  plenary  revela- 
tion of  all  Christian  doctrine  was  made  by  Christ  to  the  Apostles 
and  by  them  communicated  to  the  Church,  partly  in  their  writings 
and  partly  by  oral  instructions.  To  prove  that  any  doctrme  is  of 
divine  authority,  it  must  be  proved  that  it  was  taught  by  the 
Apostles,  and  to  prove  that  they  taught  it,  it  must  be  proved  that 
it  has  been  always  and  everywhere  held  by  the  Church.  But  ac- 
cording to  Gerson  the  Church  of  to-day  may  hold  what  the  Apos- 
tles never  held,  and  even  the  very  reverse  of  what  was  held  by 
them  and  by  the  Church  for  ages  to  be  true.  He  teaches  that 
the  Church  before  his  time  taught  that  the  Virgin  Mary,  in 
common  with  all  other  members  of  the  human  race,  was  born  with 
the  infection  of  original  sin ;  but  that  the  Church  of  his  day, 
undef  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  believed  in  her  immaculate 
conception.  This  resolves  tradition  into,  or  rather  substitutes  for 
it,  the  sensus  communis  ecclesice  of  any  given  time.  It  has  al- 
ready been  shown  ^  that  Moehler  in  his  "  SymboUk  "  teaches  sub- 
stantially the  same  doctrine. 

This  question  was  undecided  at  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  gave  the  fathers  there  assembled  a  great 
deal  of  trouble.  The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  of  nearly  equal 
influence  in  the  Council,  each  urged  that  their  pecuhar  views 
should  be  sanctioned.  The  legates  in  their  perplexity  referred 
to  Rome  for  instructions,  and  were  directed  for  fear  of  scliism  to 
prevent  any  further  controversy  on  the  subject,  and  so  to  frame 
the  decision  as  to  satisfy  both  parties.  This  could  only  be  done 
by  leaving  the  question  undecided.  This  was  substantially  the 
course  which  the  Council  adopted.  After  affirming  that  all  man- 
kind sinned  in  Adam  and  derive  from  him  a  corrupt  nature,  it 
adds  :  "  Declarat  tamen  hsec  ipsa  Sancta  Synodus,  non  esse  suse 
intentionis  comprehendere  in  hoc  decreto,  ubi  de  peccato  original! 
agitur,  beatam,  et  immaculatam  Viriginem  Mariam,  Dei  gene- 
tricem  ;  sed  observandas  esse  constitutiones  fehcis  recordationis 
Xysti  papffi  IV.,  sub  poenis  in  eis  constitutionibus  contentis,  quas 
innovat.2  This  last  clause  refers  to  the  Bull  of  Sixtus  IV.,  issued 
in  1483,  threatening  both  parties  in  this  controversy  with  the  pains 
of  excommunication  if  either  pronounced  the  other  guilty  of  heresy 
or  mortal  sin. 

1  Vol.  i.  p.  114. 

^  This  is  from  Streitwolf,  Libn  Symbolici,  Gottingen,  1846,  p.  20.    A  foot-note  says, 
'•Totum  banc  periodum, '  Declarat-innovat,'  omnes  fere  editiones  ante  Romanas  omittunt." 
VOL.   III.  19 


290  PART  in.     Cu.  XIX.— THE  LAW. 

The  controversy  went  on,  therefore,  after  the  Council  of  Trent 
very  much  as  it  had  done  before,  until  the  present  Pope,  himself 
a  devoted  worshipper  of  the  Virgin,  announced  his  purpose  to 
have  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Mother  of  our  Lord  de- 
clared. This  purpose  he  carried  into  effect,  and  on  the  eighth 
of  December,  1854,  he  went  in  great  pomp  to  St.  Peter's  in 
Rome,  and  pronounced  the  decree  that  the  "  Vu-gin  Mary,  from 
the  first  moment  of  conception  by  the  special  grace  of  almighty 
God  in  view  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  was  preserved  from  all  stam 
of  original  sin,"  She  was  thus  placed,  as  to  complete  sinlessness, 
on  an  equality  with  her  adorable  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  whose  place 
she  occupies  in  the  confidence  and  love  of  so  large  a  part  of  the 
Roman  Cathohc  world. 

§  6.  The  Second  Commandment. 

The  two  fundamental  principles  of  the  rehgion  of  the  Bible  are 
first,  that  there  is  one  only  the  living  and  true  God,  the  maker 
of  heaven  and  earth,  who  has  revealed  Himself  under  the  name 
Jehovah  ;  secondly,  that  this  God  is  a  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  inca- 
pable of  being  conceived  of  or  represented  under  a  visible  form. 
The  first  commandment,  therefore,  forbids  the  worship  of  any 
other  being  than  Jehovah ;  and  the  second,  the  worship  of  any 
visible  object  whatever.  This  includes  the  prohibition,  not  only 
of  inward  homage,  but  of  all  external  acts  which  are  the  natural 
or  conventional  expression  of  such  inward  reverence. 

That  the  second  commandment  does  not  forbid  pictorial  or  sculp- 
tured representations  of  ideal  or  visible  objects,  is  plain  because 
the  whole  command  has  reference  to  religious  worship,  and  be- 
cause Moses,  at  the  command  of  God  himself,  made  many  such 
images  and  representations.  The  curtains  of  the  tabernacle  and 
especially  the  veil  separating  between  the  Holy  and  Most  Holy 
places,  were  adorned  with  embroidered  figures  representing  cher- 
ubim ;  cherubim  overshadowed  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  with 
their  wings  ;  the  Golden  Candlestick  was  in  the  form  of  a  tree 
"  mth  branches,  knops,  and  flowers ;  "  the  hem  of  the  liigli  priest's 
robe  was  adorned  with  alternate  bells  and  pomegranates.  When 
Solomon  built  the  temple,  "  he  carved  all  the  walls  of  the  house 
round  about  with  carved  figures  of  cherubim,  and  palm-trees, 
and  open  flowers,  withm  and  without."  (1  Kings  vi.  29.)  The 
"  molten  sea  "  stood  upon  twelve  oxen.  Of  this  house  thus  adorned 
God  said,  "  I  have  hallowed  this  house,  which  thou  hast  built,  to 
put  my  name  there  forever ;  and  mine  eyes  and  mine  heart  shall 


§6.]  THE   SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  291 

be  there  perpetually."  (1  Kings  ix.  3.)  There  can  therefore  be 
no  doubt  that  the  second  commandment  was  intended  only  to  for- 
bid the  making  or  using  the  likeness  of  anything  in  heaven  or 
earth  as  objects  of  worship.^ 

The  Worship  of  Images  forbidden. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  the  second  commandment  does  forbid 
the  use  of  images  in  divine  worship.  In  other  words,  idolatry 
consists  not  only  in  the  worship  of  false  gods,  but  also  in  the 
worship  of  the  true  God  by  images.     This  is  clear,  — 

1.  From  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words.  The  precise  thing 
forbidden  is,  bowing  down  to  them,  or  serving  them,  i.  g.,  ren- 
dering them  any  kind  of  external  homage.  This,  however,  is 
exactly  what  is  done  by  all  those  who  employ  images  as  the  ob- 
jects, or  aids  of  religious  worship. 

2,  This  is  still  further  plain  because  the  Hebrews  were  solemnly 
enjoined  not  to  make  any  visible  representation  of  the  unseen 
God,  or  to  adopt  anything  external  as  the  symbol  of  the  invisible 
and  make  such  symbol  the  object  of  worship ;  i.  e.,  they  were 
not  to  bow  down  before  these  images  or  symbols  or  serve  them. 
The  Hebrew  word  lai""  rendered  "to  serve,"  includes  all  kinds  of 
external  homage,  burning  incense,  making  oblations,  and  kissing 
m  token  of  subjection.  The  Hebrews  were  surrounded  by  idol- 
aters. The  nations,  having  forgotten  God,  or  refusing  to  acknowl- 
edge Him,  had  given  themselves  up  to  false  gods.  It  was  nature's 
invisible  force,  of  which  they  saw  constant,  and  often  fearful 
manifestations  around  them,  that  was  the  great  object  of  their 
reverence  and  fear.  But  nature,  force,  the  mvisible,  could  no 
more  satisfy  them,  than  the  invisible  Jehovah.  They  symbolized 
not  the  unknown,  but  the  real,  first  in  one  way  and  then  in 
another.  Light  and  darkness  were  the  two  most  obvious  symbols 
of  good  and  evil ;  light,  therefore,  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  the 
host  of  heaven,  were  among  the  earlier  objects  of  religious  rev- 
erence. But  anything  external  and  visible,  living  or  dead,  might 
be  made  to  the  people,  by  association  or  arbitrary  appointment, 
the  representative  of  the  great  unknown  power  by  which  all  things 

1  The  later  Jews  interpreted  this  commandment  more  strictly  than  either  Moses  or  Solo- 
mon. Josephus,  Ant.  8,  7,  5,  pronounced  making  the  figures  of  oxen  to  support  the  brazen 
laver  to  be  contrary  to  the  law.  One  of  the  most  distinguished  ministers  of  our  Church 
objected  to  the  American  Sunday  School  Union,  that  they  published  books  with  pictures. 
When  asked,  What  he  thought  of  maps?  he  answered  that  so  far  as  maps  were  designed 
simply  to  show  the  relative  position  of  places  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  they  were  allowed ; 
but  if  they  had  any  shading  on  them  to  represent  mountains,  they  were  forbidden  by  the 
second  commandment. 


292  PART  III.     Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

were  controlled.  Most  naturally,  men  distinguished  by  force  of 
character  and  by  their  exploits  would  be  regarded  as  manifesta- 
tions of  the  unknown.  Thus  nature-worship  and  hero-worship, 
the  two  great  forms  of  heathenism,  are  seen  to  be  radically  the 
same.  It  was  in  view  of  this  state  of  the  Gentile  world,  all 
nations  being  given  to  the  worship  of  the  visible  as  the  symbol 
of  the  invisible,  that  Moses  delivered  the  solemn  address  to  the 
chosen  people  recorded  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy. 
"  Only  take  heed  to  thyself,"  said  the  prophet,  "  and  keep  thy 
soul  diligently,  lest  thou  forget  the  things  which  thine  eyes  have 
seen,  and  lest  they  depart  from  thy  heart  all  the  days  of  thy  life ; 
but  teach  them  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons'  sons."  What  is  it  that  he 
thus  earnestly  called  on  them  to  remember  ?  It  was  that  in  aU 
the  wonderful  display  of  the  divine  presence  and  majesty  upon 
Sinai,  they  had  seen  "  no  simihtude,"  but  only  heard  a  voice, 
"  Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves  ;  (for  ye  saw  no 
manner  of  simihtude  on  the  day  that  the  Loed  spake  unto  you 
in  Horeb  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,)  lest  ye  corrupt  yourselves, 
and  make  you  a  graven  image,  the  similitude  of  any  figure,  the 
likeness  of  male  or  female,  the  likeness  of  any  beast  that  is  on 
the  earth,  the  likeness  of  any  winged  fowl  that  flieth  in  the  air, 
the  likeness  of  anything  that  creepeth  on  the  ground,  the  hke- 
ness  of  any  fish  that  is  in  the  waters  beneath  the  earth  :  and  lest 
thou  lift  up  thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the  sun, 
and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  host  of  heaven,  shouldest 
be  driven  to  worship  them  [literally,  "  to  prostrate  thyseK  before 
them"],  and  serve  them,  which  the  LoRD  thy  God  hath  divided 

unto  all  nations  under  the  whole  heaven Take  heed  unto 

yourselves,  lest  ye  forget  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God, 
which  he  made  with  you,  and  make  you  a  graven  image,  the 
hkeness  of  anything  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  forbidden 
thee.  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  even  a  jeal- 
ous God."  The  thing  thus  repeatedly  and  solemnly  forbidden  as 
a  violation  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  people,  was 
the  bowing  down  to,  or  using  anything  visible,  whether  a  natural 
object  as  the  sun  or  moon,  or  a  work  of  art  and  man's  device,  ^s 
an  object  or  mode  of  divine  worship.  And  in  this  sense  the  com- 
mand has  been  understood  by  the  people  to  whom  it  was  given, 
from  the  time  of  Moses  until  now.  The  worship  of  the  true  God 
by  images,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Hebrews,  has  ever  been  considered 
as  much  an  act  of  idolatry  as  the  worship  of  false  gods. 

3.  A  third   argument  on  this   subject  is,  that  the  worship  of 


§6.]  THE   SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  293 

Jehovali  by  the  use  of  images  is  denounced  and  punished  as  an 
act  of  apostasy  from  God.  When  the  Hebrews  in  the  wilderness 
said  to  Aaron,  "  Make  us  gods  which  shall  go  before  us,"  neither 
they  nor  Aaron  intended  to  renounce  Jehovah  as  their  God  ;  but 
they  desired  a  visible  symbol  of  God,  as  the  heathen  had  of  their 
gods.  This  is  plain,  because  Aaron,  when  he  fashioned  the  golden 
calf  and  built  an  altar  before  it,  made  proclamation,  and  said, 
"•  To-morrow  is  a  feast  to  Jehovah."  "  Their  sin  then  lay,  not  in 
their  adopting  another  god,  but  in  their  pretending  to  worship  a 
visible  symbol  of  Him  whom  no  symbol  could  represent."  ^ 

In  like  manner,  when  the  ten  tribes  separated  from  Judah  and 
were  erected  into  a  separate  kingdom  under  Jeroboam,  the  wor- 
ship of  God  by  idols  was  regarded  as  an  apostasy  from  the  true 
God.  It  is  evident  from  the  whole  narrative  that  Jeroboam  did 
not  intend  to  introduce  the  worship  of  any  other  god  than  Jeho- 
vah. It  was  the  place  and  mode  of  worship  which  he  sought  to 
change.  He  feared  that  if  the  people  continued  to  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem and  worship  in  the  temple  there  established,  they  would  soon 
return  to  their  allegiance  to  the  house  of  David.  To  prevent  this, 
he  made  two  golden  calves,  as  Aaron  had  done,  symbols  of  the 
God  who  had  brought  his  people  out  of  Egypt,  and  placed  one  in 
Dan  and  the  other  in  Bethel,  and  commanded  the  people  to  resort 
to  those  places  for  worship.  Thus  also  Jehu,  who  boasted  of  his 
"  zeal  for  Jehovah,"  and  exterminated  the  priests  and  worshippers 
of  Baal,  retained  the  service  of  the  golden  calves,  because,  as  Winer 
expresses  it,  "  that  had  become  the  established  form  of  the  Je- 
hovah-worship in  Israel."  "  Er  [Jehu]  behielt  den  Kalberdienst 
in  Dan  und  Bethel,  als  in  Israel  einheimisch  gewordenen  Jehovah- 
dienst."  ^  In  Leviticus  xxvi.  1,  it  is  said  :  "  Ye  shall  make  you 
no  idols  nor  graven  image,  neither  rear  you  up  a  standing  image, 
neither  shall  ye  set  vip  any  image  of  stone  in  your  land,  to  bow 
down  unto  it :  for  I  am  the  LoRD  your  God."  And  Moses  com- 
manded that  when  the  people  had  gained  possession  of  the  prom- 
ised land,  six  of  the  tribes  should  be  gathered  on  Mount  Gerizim 
to  bless,  and  six  upon  Mount  Ebal  to  curse  :  "  And  the  Levites 
shall  speak  and  say  unto  all  the  men  of  Israel  with  a  loud  voice, 
cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  any  graven  or  molten  image,  an 
abomination  unto  the  Lord,  the  work  of  the  hands  of  the  crafts- 
man, and  putteth  it  in  a  secret  place.  And  all  the  people  shall 
answer  and  say,  Amen."     (Deut.  xxvii.  15.) 

'■  Ike  Holy  Bible,  with  an  Explanatory  and  Critical  Commentary.  By  Bishops  and  othef 
Clergy  of  the  Anglican  Church.    New  York:  Charles  Scribner  &  Co.,  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  405. 

2  Biblisches  Beahuirterbuch,  von  Dr.  Georg  Benedict  Winer,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1847, 
art.  "Jehu." 


294  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

The  specific  thing  thus  frequently  and  solemnly  forbidden  is 
the  bowing  down  to  images,  or  rendering  them  any  religious  ser- 
vice. In  this  sense  these  commands  were  understood  by  the  an- 
cient people  of  God  to  whom  they  were  originally  given,  and  by 
the  whole  Christian  Church  until  the  sudden  influx  of  nominally 
converted  heathen  into  the  Church  after  the  time  of  Constantine, 
who  brought  with  them  heathenish  ideas  and  insisted  on  heathen 
modes  of  worship. 

The  simple  obvious  facts  with  regard  to  the  religion  of  the 
gentile  world  are,  (1.)  That  the  gods  of  the  nations  were  imag- 
inary beings  ;  that  is,  they  either  had  no  existence  except  in  the 
imaginations  of  their  worshippers,  or  they  did  not  possess  the  at- 
tributes which  were  ascribed  to  them.  Therefore  they  are  called 
in  Scripture  vanity,  lies,  nonentities.  (2.)  Of  these  imaginary 
beings  symbols  were  selected  or  images  formed,  to  which  all  the 
homage  supposed  to  be  due  to  the  gods  themselves  was  paid. 
This  was  not  done  on  the  assumption  that  the  symbols  or  images 
were  really  gods.  The  Greeks  did  not  think  that  Jupiter  was  a 
block  of  marble.  Neither  did  the  heathen  mentioned  in  the  Bible 
believe  that  the  sun  was  Baal.  Nevertheless  some  connection 
was  supposed  to  exist  between  the  image  and  the  divinity  which 
it  was  intended  to  represent.  With  some  this  connection  was 
simply  that  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  ;  with  others 
it  was  more  mystical,  or  what  in  these  days  we  should  call 
sacramental.  In  either  case  it  was  such  that  the  homage  due  to 
the  divinity  was  paid  to  his  image  ;  and  any  indignity  offered  to 
the  latter  was  resented  as  offered  to  the  former. 

As,  therefore,  the  heathen  gods  were  no  gods,  and  as  the  homage 
due  to  God  was  paid  to  the  idols,  the  sacred  writers  denounced 
the  heathen  as  the  worshippers  of  stocks  and  stones,  and  con- 
demned them  for  the  folly  of  making  gods  out  of  wood  or  metal 
"  graven  by  art  and  man's  device."  They  made  little  or  no  dif- 
ference between  the  worshipping  of  images  and  the  worshipping 
false  gods.  The  two  things  were,  in  their  view,  identical.  Hence 
in  the  Bible  the  worship  of  images  is  denounced  as  idolatry, 
without  regard  to  the  divinity,  whether  true  or  false,  to  whom  the 
image  was  dedicated. 

The  Reasons  annexed  to  this  Commandment. 

The  relation  between  the  soul  and  God  is  far  more  intimate 
than  that  between  the  soul  and  any  creature.  Our  life,  spiritual 
and  eternal,  depends  on  our  relation  to  our  Maker.     Hence  our 


§6.]  THE   SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  295 

highest  duty  is  to  Him.  The  greatest  sin  a  man  can  commit  is 
to  refuse  to  render  to  God  the  admiration  and  obedience  which 
are  his  due,  or  to  transfer  to  the  creature  the  allegiance  and  ser- 
vice which  belong  to  Him.  Hence  no  sin  is  so  frequently  or  so 
severely  denounced  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  most  intimate  relation  which  can  subsist  among  men  is 
that  of  marriage.  No  injury  which  can  be  rendered  by  one  man 
against  another  is  greater  than  the  violation  of  that  relation  ;  and 
no  sin  which  a  wife  can  commit  is  more  heinous  and  degrading 
than  infidelity  to  her  marriage  vows. 

This  being  the  case,  it  is  natural  that  the  relation  between  God 
and  his  people  should  be,  as  it  is,  in  the  Bible  so  often  illustrated 
by  a  reference  to  the  marriage  relation.  A  people  who  refuse 
to  recognize,  or  an  individual  man  who  refuses  to  recognize  Jeho- 
vah as  his  God,  who  transfers  the  allegiance  and  obedience  due  to 
God  alone  to  any  other  object,  is  compared  to  an  unfaithful  wife. 
And  as  jealousy  is  the  strongest  of  human  passions,  the  relation 
of  God  to  those  who  thus  forsake  Him  is  illustrated  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  feelings  of  an  injured  and  forsaken  husband.  It  is 
in  this  way  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  severest  displeasure 
of  God,  and  the  most  dreadful  manifestations  of  his  wrath,  are 
the  certain  consequences  of  the  sin  of  idolatry  ;  that  is,  of  the  sin 
of  having  any  other  God  than  Jehovah,  or  of  giving  to  images, 
to  stocks  and  stones,  the  external  homage  due  to  Him  who  is  a 
spirit,  and  who  must  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

The  Lord,  therefore,  in  this  commandment,  declares  Himself  to 
be  "  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  ;  and  showing 
mercy  unto  thousands  (unto  the  thousandth  generation)  of  them 
that  love  me,  and  keep  my  commandments."  The  evil  conse- 
quences of  apostasy  from  God  are  not  confined  to  the  original 
apostates.  They  are  continued  from  generation  to  generation. 
They  seem  indeed,  and,  humanly  speaking,  in  fact  are  remediless. 
The  degradation  and  untold  miseries  of  the  whole  heathen  world 
are  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequence  of  their  forefathers' 
having  turned  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshipped  and 
served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator.  These  natural  conse- 
quences, however,  are  designed,  ordained,  and  judicial.  They 
are  not  mere  calamities.  They  are  judgments,  and  therefore  are 
not  to  be  counteracted  or  evaded.  Consequently  those  who  teach 
atheism,  or  who  undermine  religion,  or  who  corrupt  and  degrade 
the  worship  of  God  by  associating  with  it  the  worship  of  creat- 


296  -PART  in.   Ch.  XIX.— the  law. 

ures ;  or  who  teacli  that  we  may  make  graven  images  and  bow 
down  to  them  and  serve  them,  are  bringing  down  upon  them- 
selves and  upon  coming  generations  the  most  direful  calamities 
that  can  degrade  and  afflict  the  childi-en  of  men.  Such  must  be 
the  issue  unless  they  not  only  can  counteract  the  operation  of  nat- 
ural causes,  but  also  can  thwart  the  purpose  of  Jehovah. 

It  is  a  great  cause  for  thankfulness,  and  adapted  to  fill  the 
hearts  of  God's  faithful  people  with  joy  and  confidence,  to  know 
that  He  will  bless  their  children  to  the  thousandth  generation. 

The  Doctrine  and  Usage  of  the  Romish  Church  as  to  Images. 

Salvation,  our  Lord  said,  is  of  the  Jews.  The  founders  of  the 
Christian  Church  were  Jews.  The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  which  they  had  been  educated  forbade  the  use  of  images  in 
divine  worship.  All  the  heathen  were  worshippers  of  idols. 
Idol-worship,  therefore,  was  an  abomination  to  the  Jews.  With 
the  Old  Testament  authority  against  the  use  of  images  and 
with  this  strong  national  prejudice  against  their  use,  it  is  abso- 
lutely incredible  that  they  should  be  admitted  in  the  more  spir- 
itual worship  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  was  not  until  three 
centuries  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  that  the  influence 
of  the  heathen  element  introduced  into  the  Church  was  strong 
enough  to  overcome  the  natural  opposition  to  their  use  in  the 
service  of  the  sanctuary.  Three  parties  soon  developed  themselves 
in  connection  with  this  subject.  The  first  adhered  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  usage  of  the  Apostolic  Churches, 
and  repudiated  the  religious  use  of  images  in  any  form.  The 
second  allowed  the  use  of  images  and  pictures  for  the  purpose  of 
instruction,  but  not  for  worship.  The  common  people  could  not 
read,  and  therefore  it  was  argued  that  visible  representations  of 
Scriptural  persons  and  incidents  were  allowable  for  their  benefit. 
The  third  contended  for  their  use  not  only  as  a  means  of  instruc- 
tion, but  also  for  worship. 

As  early  as  A.  D.  305,  the  Council  of  Elvira  in  Spain  con- 
demned the  use  of  pictures  in  the  Church.^  In  the  thirty-sixth 
Canon  the  Council  says,^  "  Placuit  picturas  in  ecclesia  esse  non 
debere ;  ne  quod  colitur  et  adoratur  in  parietibus  depingafur." 
Augustine  complained  of  the  superstitious  use  of  images  ;  Euse- 
bius  of  Csesarea,  and  Epiphanius  of  Salamis,  protested  against 

1  The  year  305  is  usuallj-  assigned  as  the  date  of  this  Council,  although  the  precise  time 
of  its  session  is  matter  of  dispute. 

^Binius,  Concilia  Generalia  et  Provincalia,  Cologne,  1618,  t.  i.  vol.  i.  p.  195,  B.  C. 


§  6.]  THE   SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  297 

their  being  made  objects  of  worship ;  and  Gregory  the  Great 
allowed  their  use  only  as  means  of  instruction.^ 

In  A.  D.  726  the  Emperor  Leo  III.  issued  an  ordinance  forbid- 
ding the  use  of  images  in  churches  as  heathenish  and  heretical. 
To  support  his  action  a  council  was  called,  which  met  in  Constan- 
tinople A.  D.  754,  and  which  gave  ecclesiastical  sanction  to  this 
condemnation.  In  A.  D.  787,  however,  the  Empress  Irene,  under 
Roman  influence,  called  a  council,  which  Romanists  of  the  Italian 
school  consider  ecumenical,  at  Nice,  by  which  image-worship  was 
fully  sanctioned.  This  Council  first  met  in  Constantinople,  but 
there  the  opposition  to  the  use  of  images  was  so  strong  that  it  was 
disbanded  and  called  to  meet  the  following  year  at  Nice.  Here 
the  face  of  things  had  changed ;  enemies  had  been  converted ;  op- 
ponents became  advocates ;  even  Gregory  of  Neo-Cjesarea,  who  had 
been  a  zealous  supporter  of  the  policy  of  Leo  III.  and  of  his  son 
Constantine  Copronymus,  was  brought  to  say,  "  Si  omnes  consen- 
tiunt,  ego  non  dissentio."  Few  could  withstand  the  promises  and 
threats  of  those  in  power,  and  the  cogency  of  the  argument  for 
image  worship  drawn  from  the  numerous  miracles  adduced  in  fa- 
vour of  their  worship.  This  Council,  therefore,  declared  the  pre- 
vious Council,  called  by  Leo  III.,  heretical,  and  ordained  the  wor- 
ship of  pictures  in  the  churches  ;  not  indeed  with  karpeia,  or  the 

reverence    due   to    God,    but   with  do-Tracr/xos    kol   TLfxrjTtKrj   TrpocTKVvrja-LS 

(with  salutations  and  reverent  prostrations).  The  Council  an- 
nounced the  principle  on  which  image-worship,  whether  among 
the  heathen  or  Christians,  has  generally  been  defended,  i.  e.,  that 
the  worship  paid  the  image  terminates  on  the  object  which  it  rep- 
resents. '  H  T^S  etKOl'OS  TLjXr]  i-TTL  TO  TrpjTOTVTTOV  SlttySatVet  KOL  6  TTpoaKwStv 
Tr]v  iiKOva  TrpoaKVvei.  iv  avrfj  tov  eyyptt^o/xe'iou  Tr]v  vTroaraaa'. 

The  decisions  of  this  Council,  although  sanctioned  by  the  Pope, 
gave  offence  to  the  Western  Churches.  The  Emperor  Charle- 
magne not  only  caused  a  book  to  be  written  (entitled  "  Libri 
Carolini  ")  to  refute  the  doctrines  inculcated,  but  also  summoned 
a  council  to  meet  at  Frankfort  on  the  Main  A.  D.  794,  at  which 
delegates  from  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  and  even  two  le- 
gates fi'om  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  were  present ;  where  the  decrees 
of  the  so-called  General  Council  of  Nice  were  "  rejected,"  "  de- 
spised," and  "  condemned."  All  worshipping  of  pictures  and  im- 
ages was  forbidden,  but  their  presence  in  the  churches  for  instruc- 
tion and  ornament  was  allowed. 

The  friends  of  image-worship,  however,  rapidly  gained  the  as- 

^  See  Guericke,  Kirchengeschichte,  ii.  iii.  2,  §  77,  Gth  edit.  Leipzig,  I'^l'').  vol  i.  p    ]50. 


298  PART  m.    Ch.  xtx.— the  law. 

cendancy,  so  that  Thomas  Aquinas,  one  of  the  best  as  well  as  the 
greatest  of  the  Romish  theologians  in  the  thirteenth  century,  held 
the  extreme  doctrine  on  this  subject.  He  taught  that  images 
were  to  be  used  in  the  churches  for  three  purposes,  first,  for  the 
instruction  of  the  masses  who  could  not  read  ;  secondly,  that  the 
mystery  of  the  incarnation  and  the  examples  of  the  saints  may  be 
the  better  remembered  ;  and  thirdly,  that  pious  feelings  may  be 
excited,  as  men  are  more  easily  moved  by  what  they  see  than  by 
what  they  hear.  He  taught  that  to  the  image  in  itself  and  for 
itself  no  reverence  is  due,  but  that  if  it  represents  Christ,  the  rever- 
ence due  to  Christ  is  due  to  the  image.  "  Sic  ergo  dicendum  est, 
quod  imagini  Christi  in  quantum  est  res  qusedam  (puta  lignum 
vel  pictum)  nulla  reverentia  exhibetur ;  quia  reverentia  nonnisi 
rationali  naturae  debetur.  Relinquitur  ergo  quod  exliibeatur  ei 
reverentia  solum,  in  quantum  est  imago :  et  sic  sequitur,  quod 
eadem  reverentia  exhibeatur  imagini  Christi  et  ipsi  Christo.  Cum 
ergo  Christus  adoretur  adoratione  latrige,  consequens  est,  quod 
ejus  imago  sit  adoratione  latriae  adoranda."  ^ 

Tridentine  Doctrine. 

The  Council  of  Trent  acted  with  reference  to  the  worship  of 
images  with  its  usual  caution.  It  decreed  that  to  the  images  of 
Christ  and  the  saints  "  due  reverence  "  should  be  paid,  without 
defining  what  that  reverence  is.  The  council  decided  :  "  Imagines 
porro  Christi,  Deiparae  Virginis,  et  aliorum  sanctorum,  in  templis 
prsesertim  habendas,  et  retinendas  ;  eisque  debitum  honorem,  et 
venerationem  impertiendam  ;  non  quod  credatur  inesse  aliqua 
in  eis  divinitas,  vel  virtus,  propter  quam  sint  colendae ;  vel  quod 
ab  eis  sit  aliquid  petendum  ;  vel  quod  fiducia  in  imaginibus  sit 
Agenda  ;  veluti  olim  fiebat  a  gentibus,  quae  in  idolis  spem  suam 
coUocabant ;  sed  quoniam  honos,  qui  eis  exhibetur  refertur  ad  pro- 
totypa,  quaB  illse  representant :  ita  ut  per  imagines,  quas  osculamur, 
et  coram  quibus  caput  aperimus,  et  procumbiraus,  Christum  adore- 
mus  ;  et  sanctos,  quorum  illje  similitudinem  gerunt,  veneremur." 

In  the  same  session  it  was  decreed  concerning  relics :  "  Sanc- 
torum quoque  martyrum,  et  aliorum  cum  Christo  viventium  sancta 
corpora,  quae  viva  membra  fuerunt  Christi,  et  templum  Spiritua 
Sancti,  ab  ipso  ad  aeternam  vitam  suscitanda,  et  glorificanda,  a 
fidelibus  veneranda  esse  ;  per  quae  multa  beneficia  a  Deo  hominibua 
prsestantur  :  ita  ut  affirmantes,  sanctorum  reliquiis  venerationem, 
atque  honorem  non  deberi ;  vel  eas,  aliaque  sacra  monumenta  a 

1  Summa,  iii.  quaest.  xxv.  art  3,  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  53  of  fourth  set. 


g6.]  THE    SECOND    COMMANDMENT.  299 

fidelibus  Inutiliter  honorari ;  atque  eorum  opis  impetrandae  causa 
sanctorum  memorias  frastra  frequentari ;  omnino  damnandos  esse  ; 
prout  jampridem  eos  damnavit,  et  nunc  etiam  damnat  ecclesia."  ^ 
On  relic-worship  the  Roman  Catechism,  says,  "  Cui  fidem  non 
faciant  et  honoris,  qui  Sanctis  debetur,  et  patrocinii,  quod  nostri 
suscipiunt,  mirabiles  effectse  res  ad  eorum  sepulcra,  et  oculis,  et 
manibus  membrisque  omnibus  captis,  in  pristinum  statum  restitu- 
tis,  mortuis  ad  vitam  revocatis,  ex  corporibus  hominum  ejectis 
demoniis  ?  qus;  non  audisse,  ut  multi,  non  legisse,  ut  pkirimi 
gravissimi  viri,  sed  vidisse,  testes  locupletissimi  sancti  Ambrosius 
et  Augustinus  litteris  prodiderunt.  Quid  raulta  ?  si  vestes,  su- 
daria,  si  umbra  sanctorum,  priusquam  e  vita  migrarent,  depulit 
morbos,  viresque  restituit,  quis  tandem  negare  audeat,  Deum  per 
sacros  cineres,  ossa,  ceterasque  sanctorum  reliquias  eadem  mirabili- 
ter  efficere  ?  Declaravit  id  cadaver  iUud,  quod  forte  illatum  in 
sepulcrum  Elisei,  ejus  tacto  corpore,  subito  revixit."  ^ 

Bellarmin. 

The  whole  of  the  Liber  Secundus  of  Bellarmin's  Disputation 
"  De  Ecclesia  Triumphante  "  in  the  second  volume  of  his  works, 
is  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  worship  of  the 
relics  and  images  of  the  saints.  As  to  the  worship  of  images  he 
says  there  a,re  three  opinions  among  Romanists  themselves  : 
"  Prima,  quod  imago  non  sit  ullo  modo  in  se  colenda,  sed  solum 
coram  imagine  colendum  exemplar."  "  Secunda  opinio  est,  quod 
idem  honor  debeatur  imagini  ut  exemplari,  et  proinde  Christi 
imago  sit  adoranda  cultu  latriae,  Beatae  Marias  cultu  hyperdulias, 
sanctorum  aliorum,  cultu  duliae."  "  Tertia  opinio  versatur  in 
medio,  estque  eorum,  qui  dicunt,  ipsas  imagines  in  se,  et  proprie 
honorari  debere,  sed  honore  minori,  quam  ipsum  exemplar,  et 
proinde  nullam  imaginem  adorandam  esse  cultu  latrise."  ^  His 
own  opinion  is  given  in  the  following  propositions  :  "  Prima  sen- 
tentia,  sive  propositio.  Imagines  Christi,  et  sanctorum  venerandae 
sunt,  non  solum  per  accidens,  vel  improprie,  sed  etiam  per  se  pro- 
prie, ita  ut  ipsas  terminent  venerationem  ut  in  se  considerantur, 
et  non  solum  ut  vicem  gerunt  exemplaris."  "  Secunda  propositio. 
Quantum  ad  modum  loquendi  praesertim  in  concione  ad  populum, 
non  est  dicendum  imagines  ullas  adorari  debere  latria,  sed  e  con- 
trario  non  debere  sic   adorari."    "  Tertia  propositio.     Si   de  re 

1  Sess.  XXV. ;  Streitwolf,  Lihri  Symbolici,  Gottingen,  1846,  vol.  i.  pp.  93,  94. 

2  III.  ii.  8  (15,  XXX.,  xxxi.);  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  482. 

^  De  Ecclesia  Triumjjhanie,  lib.  ii.,  De  Imacjinibus  Sanctorum,  cap.  xx. ;  Disputationea 
Paris,  1608,  vol.  ii.  pp.  801,  802. 


300  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

ipsa  agatur,  admitti  potest,  imagines  posse  coli  improprie,  vel  per 
accidens,  eodem  genere  cultus,  quo  exemplar  ipsum  colitur." 
"  Quarta  propositio.  Imago  per  se,  et  proprie  non  est  adoranda 
eodem  cultu,  quo  ipsum  exemplar,  et  proinde  milla  imago  est 
adoranda  cultu  latri^  per  se,  et  proprie."  "  Quinta  conclusio, 
Cultus,  qui  per  se,  proprie  debetur  imaginibus,  est  cultus  quidam 
iinperfectus,  qui  analogice  et  reductive  pertinet  ad  speciem  ejus 
cultus,  qui  debetur  exemplari."  ^ 

Relics. 

Bellarmin  in  his  defence  of  the  "  cultus  reliquiarum  "  begins 
with  an  attempted  refutation  of  Calvin's  five  arguments  against 
such  worship.  He  then  presents  his  own  in  favour  of  it.^  They 
are  such  as  these  :  First,  from  Scriptural  examples  :  (a.)  Moses 
carried  the  bones  "  sancti  Josephi  "  with  him  when  he  left  Egypt ; 
(5.)  God  honoured  the  remains  of  Moses  by  burying  them  with 
his  own  hands  ;  (c)  A  dead  man  was  restored  to  life  by  contact 
with  the  bones  of  Elisha  (2  Kings  xiii.  21)  ;  (c?.)  Isaiah  predicted 
that  the  sepulchre  of  the  Messiah  should  be  glorious.  The  Vul- 
gate renders  Isaiah  xi.  10,  "  Et  erit  sepulcrum  ejus  gloriosum  ;  " 
which  Bellarmin  understands  as  foretelling  "  ut  sepulcrum  Domini, 
ab  omnibus  honoraretur."  And  adds,  "  Ex  quo  refellitur  Lutheri 
blasphemia,  qui  in  libro  de  abolenda  Missa  dicit,  Deo  non  majo- 
rem  curam  esse  de  sepulcro  Domini,  quam  de  bobus.  "  (e.)  The 
woman  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  was  healed  by  touching  Christ's 
garment ;  the  sick,  according  to  Acts  v.  15,  were  placed  in  the 
streets  "  that  at  least  the  shadow  of  Peter  passing  by  might  over- 
shadow some  of  them  "  ;  again,  in  Acts  xix.  11, 12,  it  is  said  :  "  God 
Avrought  special  miracles  by  the  hands  of  Paul :  so  that  from  his 
body  were  brought  unto  the  sick  handkerchiefs  or  aprons,  and 
the  diseases  departed  from  them,  and  the  evil  spirits  went  out  of 
them."  If,  says  Bellarmin,  Christ  were  now  on  earth,  and  we 
should  kiss  his  garment,  the  Protestants  would  call  us  idolaters. 

His  second  argument  is  from  the  decisions  of  councils  ;  the 
third  from  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  ;  the  fourth  and  fifth 
from  the  miracles  wrought  by  and  in  the  relics  of  the  saiiits,  of 
which  he  cites  numerous  examples  ;  the  sixth  from  the  miraculous 
discovery  of  the  remains  of  the  saints,  "  Si  enim  Deo  cultus  re- 
liquiarum non  placeret,  cur  ipse  servis  suis  corpora  sanctorum, 
quae  latebant,  ostenderet  ?  "  the  seventh,  from  the  translation 
of  relics  from  one  place  to  another.     He  also  argues  from  th« 

1   Ut  supra,  cap.  xxi.-xxv.  pp.  802-809.  2  m  supra,  cap.  iii.  pp.  746-753. 


§6.]  THE  SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  301 

custom  of  depositing  the  remains  of  the  saints  under  altars,  and 
burning  incense  and  lamps  before  their  tombs.^ 

Remarks. 

1.  From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  Romanists  worship  im- 
ages in  the  same  way  that  the  heathen  of  old  did,  and  pagans  of 
our  own  day  still  do.  They  "  bow  down  to  them  and  serve  them." 
They  pay  them  all  the  external  homage  which  they  render  to 
the  persons  they  are  intended  to  represent. 

2.  The  explanations  and  defence  of  such  worship  are  the  same 
in  both  cases.  The  heathen  recognized  the  fact  that  the  images 
made  of  gold,  silver,  wood,  or  marble  were  lifeless  and  insensible 
in  themselves  ;  they  admitted  that  they  could  not  see,  or  hear,  or 
save.  They  attributed  no  inherent  virtue  or  supernatural  power 
to  them.  They  claimed  that  the  homage  paid  to  them  terminated 
on  the  gods  which  they  represented  ;  that  they  only  worshipped 
before  the  images,  or  at  most  through  them.  So  far  as  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  are  concerned,  they  were  less  reverential  to 
the  mere  image,  and  claimed  far  less  of  the  supernatural  in  con- 
nection Avith  their  use. 

3.  Both  among  the  heathen  and  the  Romanists,  for  the  unedu- 
cated people  the  images  themselves  were  the  objects  of  worship. 
It  would  be  hard  to  find  in  any  heathen  author  such  justification 
of  image-worship  as  the  Romish  theologians  put  forth.  What 
heathen  ever  said  that  the  same  homage  was  due  to  the  image  of 
Jupiter  as  to  Jupiter  himself  ?  This  Thomas  Aquinas  says  of 
the  images  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints.  Or  what  heathen  ever 
has  said,  as  Bellarmin  says,  that  although  the  homage  to  be  paid 

1  In  the  Decreta  et  Articuli  Jidei  jurandi  per  Episcopos  et  alios  Predates  in  susceptione 
muneris  consecrationis,  publicati  Bvmce  in  Consistorio  ap.  S.  Marcum  d.  IV.  Septbr.  a. 
MDLX.,  are  the  following  articles:  "  Virgo  Dei  genitrix,  Angeli,  et  Sancti,  religiose  coli 
debent,  et  invocari,  ut  eorura  meritis,  et  precibus  juvemur. 

"  Crux  Christi,  et  imagines,  ac  quaecunque  attigerunt,  adoranda  sunt,  juxta  Ecclesise 
catholicis  doctrinam,  etfidem. 

"  Deiparre  Virginis  Marise,  angelorum,  et  sanctorum  sunt  imagines  adorandre  (id  est  in 
honore  habendse,  as  it  reads  in  the  margin)  turn  corpora,  et  reliquiae  qutevis."  See  Streit- 
wolf,  Lihri  Symbolici  Ecchsim  CathoHcce,  Gottingen,  1846,  vol.  ii.  p.  328. 

Notwithstanding  such  authoritative  declarations,  Bellarmin  enumerates  it  as  among  the 
I  "mendacia"  of  the  Centuriators  and  of  Calvin  that  they  say  that  the  Catholics  "  Non 
1  solum  sanctos  Christi  loco  adorant,  sed  etiam  eorum  ossa,  vestes,  calceos,  et  simulacra;" 
and  asks:  "  At  quis  unquam  Catholicorum  reliquias  invocavit?  Quis  unquam  auditus  est 
in  precibus,  aut  litaniis  dixisse :  '  Sanctae  reliquias,  orate  pro  me  ?  '  Et  quis  easdem  un- 
quam divino  honore  affecit,  vel  Christi  loco  adoravit:  nos  enim  reliquias  quidem  hono- 
ramus,  et  osculamur  ut  sacra  pignora  patronorura  nostrorum:  sed  nee  adoramus  ut  Deum 
uec  invocamus  ut  sanctos,  sed  minore  cultu  veneramur,  quam  sanctorum  spiritus,  nedum 
quam  Deum  ipsum."  De  Ecclesia  Triumphante,  hb.  ii.,  De  Reliquiis  Sanctorum,  cap.  ii.  j 
Disputationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  ii.  pp.  745,  e,  746,  a. 


802  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

to  the  image  is  not  strictly  and  properly  the  same  as  that  due  to 
its  prototype,  it  is  nevertheless  improperly  and  analogically  the 
same  ;  the  same  in  kind  although  not  in  degree  ?  What  can  the 
common  people  know  of  the  difference  between  projjrie  and  im- 
proiyrie  ?  They  are  told  to  worship  the  image,  and  they  worship 
it  just  as  the  heathen  worshipped  the  images  of  their  gods.  As 
the  Bible  pronounces  and  denounces  as  idolatry  not  only  the  wor- 
ship of  false  gods,  but  also  the  worship  of  images,  '  the  bowing 
down  to  them  and  serving  them,'  it  is  clear  that  the  Roman  Church 
is  as  wholly  given  to  idolatry  as  was  Athens  when  visited  by  Paul. 

4.  The  moral  and  religious  effects  of  image  worship  are  al- 
together evil.  It  is  enough  to  prove  that  it  is  evil  in  its  conse- 
quences that  God  has  forbidden  it,  and  threatened  to  visit  the 
worshippers  of  idols  with  his  severe  judgments.  It  degrades  the 
worship  of  God.  It  turns  off  the  minds  of  the  people  from  the 
proper  object  of  reverence  and  confidence,  and  leads  the  un- 
educated masses  to  put  their  trust  in  gods  who  cannot  save. 

5.  As  to  the  worship  of  relics,  it  is  enough  to  say,  (a.)  That 
it  has  no  support  from  Scripture.  The  outline  of  Bellarmin's 
arguments  given  above,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Bible  fur- 
nishes no  apology  for  this  superstitious  custom.  (5.)  What  pass 
for  relics,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  are  spurious.  There  is 
no  end  to  the  deceptions  practised  on  the  people  in  this  regard. 
There  are,  it  is  said,  enough  fragments  of  the  cross  exhibited  in 
different  sanctuaries,  to  build  a  large  ship  ;  and  there  are  imiumer- 
able  nails  which  are  reverenced  as  the  instruments  of  om*  Lord's 
torture.  Bones  not  only  of  ordinary  men,  but  even  of  brutes, 
are  set  before  the  people  as  relics  of  the  saints. ^  In  one  of  the 
cathedrals  of  Spain  there  is  a  magnificent  ostrich  feather  preserved 
in  a  gorgeous  casket,  which  the  priests  affirm  fell  from  the  wing 
of  the  angel  Gabriel.  Romanists  themselves  are  obliged  to  resort 
to  the  doctrine  of  "economics"  or  pious  fraud,  to  justify  these 
palpable  impositions  on  the  credulity  of  the  people.  Of  such  I 
impositions  the  most  flagrant  example  is  the  blood  of  St.  Janua- 
rius,  which  is  annually  liquefied  in  Naples,     (c.)  Ascribing  mirac- 

1  Luther  in  the  Smalcald  Articles,  says:  "  Reliquiae  sanctorum  refert*  multis fliendaciis, 
ineptis  et  fatuitatibus.  Canuin  et  equorura  ossa  ibi  ssppe  reperta  sunt."  In  German  it 
reads  thus:  "  Das  Heiligthum  (reliquiiB  sanctorum),  darinne  so  manche  iiffentliche  Liigen 
und  Narrenwerk  erfunden,  von  Ilunds-  und  Rossknochen,  das  auch  um  solcher  Biiberei 
willen,  das  der  Teufel  gelacht  hat,  liingst  sollte  verdanimt  worden  seyn,  wenn  gleich  etwas 
Gutes  daran  ware,  dazu  auch  oline  Gottes  Wort,  weder  geboten  noch  gerathen,  giinz  un- 
nfjthig  und  unniitz  Ding  ist."     Pars  ti.  art.  ii.  '22. 

In  the  church  at  Wittenberg  there  hangs  an  original  portrait  of  Luther  under  which  i< 
written,  "  All  his  words  were  thunderbolts." 


§6.]  THE    SECOND   COMMANDMENT.  303 

ulous  powers  to  these  pretended  relics  as  Romanists  do,  is  to  the 
last  degree  superstitious  and  degrading.  It  is  true  that  a  little 
more  than  a  centuiy  ago  belief  in  necromancy  and  witchcraft  was 
almost  universal  even  among  Protestants.  But  there  is  the 
greatest  possible  difference  between  superstitious  beliefs  prevailing 
for  a  time  among  the  people,  and  those  beliefs  being  adopted 
by  the  Church  and  enacted  into  articles  of  faith  to  bind  the  con- 
science of  the  people  in  all  time.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  chained 
down  by  the  decisions  of  her  popes  and  councils  pronomicing 
the  grossest  superstitions  to  be  matters  of  divine  revelation  sanc- 
tioned and  approved  by  God.  She  has  rendered  it  impossible  for 
men  entitled  to  be  called  rational  to  beheve  what  she  teaches. 
The  great  lesson  taught  by  the  history  of  image-worship  and 
the  reverencing  of  relics,  is  the  importance  of  adhering  to  the 
word  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice ;  receiv- 
ing nothing  as  true  in  religion  but  what  the  Bible  teaches,  and 
admitting  nothing  into  divine  worship  which  the  Scriptures  do 
not  either  sanction  or  enjoin. 

Protestant  Doctrine  on  the  Suhject. 

As  the  worship  of  images  is  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, Protestants,  as  well  Lutheran  as  Reformed,  condemned 
their  being  made  the  objects  of  any  reHgious  homage.  As,  how- 
ever, their  use  for  the  purposes  of  instruction  or  ornament  is  not 
thus  expressly  forbidden,  Luther  contended  that  such  use  was 
allowable  and  even  desirable.  He,  therefore,  favoured  their  being 
retained  in  the  Churches.  The  Reformed,  however,  on  account 
of  the  great  abuse  which  had  attended  their  introduction,  insisted 
that  they  should  be  excluded  from  all  places  of  worship. 

The  Lutheran  standards  do  not  dilate  on  this  subject.  In  the 
Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession  it  is  said  :  "  Primum  quia 
cum  alii  mediatores  praeter  Christum  qua^runtur,  collocatur  fiducia 
in  alios,  obruitur  tota  notitia  Christi,  idque  res  ostendit.  Videtur 
initio  mentio  sanctorum,  qualis  est  in  veteribus  orationibus,  toler- 
abili  consilio  recepta  esse.  Postea  secuta  est  invocatio,  invoca- 
tionem  prodigiosi  et  plus  quam  ethnici  abusus  secuti  sunt.  Ab 
invocatione  ad  imagines  ventum  est,  hse  quoque  colebantur,  et 
putabatur  eis  inesse  qusedam  vis,  sicut  Magi  vim  inesse  fingunt 
imaginibus  signorum  coelestium  certo  tempore  sculptis."  ^ 

Luther  was  tolerant  of  the  use  of  images  in  the  churches.  On 
this  subject  he  says :  "If  the  worship  of  images  be  avoided,  we 

^  IX.  34;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolid,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1846,  p.  229. 


304  PART  in.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

may  use  tliem  as  we  do  the  words  of  Scripture,  wliicli  bring  things 
before  the  niind  and  cause  us  to  remember  them."  ^  "  Who  is  so 
stone  bhnd,"  he  asks,  "  as  not  to  see  that  if  sacred  events  may 
be  described  in  words  mthout  sin  and  to  the  profit  of  the  hearers, 
they  may  with  the  same  propriety,  for  the  benefit  of  the  un- 
educated, be  portrayed  or  sculptured,  not  only  at  home  and  in 
our  houses,  but  in  the  churches."  ^  In  another  place  he  says  that 
when  one  reads  of  the  passion  of  Christ,  whether  he  will  or  not, 
an  image  of  a  man  suspended  on  a  cross  is  formed  in  his  mind, 
just  as  certainly  as  his  face  is  reflected  when  he  looks  into  the 
water.  There  is  no  sin  in  having  such  an  image  in  the  mind ; 
why  then  should  it  be  sinful  to  have  it  before  the  eyes  ?  ^ 

The  Reformed  went  further  than  this.     They  condemned  not! 
only  the  worship  of   images,  but   also   their   introduction    into! 
places  of  worship,  because  they  were  unnecessary,  and  because 
they  were  so  liable  to  abuse.     The  Second  Helvetic  Confessioi 
says,  "  Rejicimus  non  modo  gentium  idola,  sed  et  Christianoruml 
simulachra.    Tametsi  enim  Christus  humanam  assumpserit  natu- 
ram,  non  ideo  tamen  assumpsit,  ut  typum  prgeferret   statuariis 

atque  pictoribus Et  quando  beati  spiritus  et  divi  coelites, 

dum  hie  viverent,  omnem  cultum  sui  averterunt,  et  statuas  op- 
pugnarunt,  cui  verisimile  videatur  divis  coelestibus  et  angelis  suas 
placere  imagmes,  ad  quas  genua  flectunt  homines,  detegunt  capita, 
aliisque  prosequuntur  honor ibus  ?  "  In  another  paragraph  of  the 
same  chapter  it  is  said  :  "  Idcirco  approbamus  Lactantii  veteris, 
scriptoris  sententiam,  dicentis,  Non  est  dubium,  quin  religio  nuUa 
est,  ubicunque  simulachrum  est."  * 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  says,^  "  Is  it  forbidden  to  make  any 
images  or  statues  ?  God  camiot  and  ought  not  in  any  way  to  be 
depicted  ;  and  although  it  is  lawful  to  make  representations  of 
creatures,  yet  God  forbids  that  they  should  be  worshipped,  or  He 
through  them.  But  may  not  images  be  tolerated  in  the  churches 
for  the  instruction  of  the  uneducated  ?  By  no  means  ;  for  it  does 
not  become  us  to  be  wiser  than  God,  who  has  willed  that  his 
Church  be  instructed,  not  by  dumb  images,  but  by  the  preaching 
of  his  word." 

No  one  who  has  ever  seen  any  of  the  masterpieces  of  Christian 
art,  whether  of  the  pencil  or  of  the  chisel,  and  felt  how  hard  it 

1  On  Micah  i.  7;  Wvrks,  edit.  Walch,  vol.  vi.  p.  2747.  ■^  Ibid.  p.  2740, 

3  Wider  die  himmb\chtn  Pnijdiaten,  von  den  Bildi;ni  und  Sacrament,  Go;  Ibid.  vol.  xx. 
J.  21.3. 

4  Confesdo  Ildvetica   Pd.itcrior,  cap.  iv. ;   Niemeyer,   ColUctio   Conftssionum,  Leipzig 
1840,  p.  47-2. 

6  Quest.  97,  98 ;  Niemeyer,  pp.  453,  454. 


§  7.]  THE   THIRD   COMMANDMENT.  305 

is  to  resist  tlie  impulse  to  "  bow  down  to  tliem  and  serve  them," 
can  doubt  the  wisdom  of  their  exclusion  from  places  of  public 

worship. 

§  7.   The   Third  Commandment. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain ; 
for  the  Lord  will  not  hold  him  guiltless  that  taketh  his  name  in 
vain." 

The  literal  meaning  of  this  command  is  doubtful.  It  may 
mean,  "Thou  shalt  not  utter  the  name  of  God  in  ^  vain  or  irrev- 
erent manner  ;  "  or,  "  Thou  shalt  not  utter  the  name  of  God  to  a 
lie,"  i.  e.,  "  Thou  shalt  not  swear  falsely."  The  Septuagint  ren- 
ders the  passage  thus  ;    Ou  A^/i/'i;  to  ovoixa  Kvpiov  tou  O^ov  aov  cTTt  fxaraua. 

The  Vulgate  has,  "  Non  assumes  nomen  Domini  Dei  tui  in  va- 
nuni."  Luther,  as  usual,  freely  ad  sensum :  "  Du  soUst  den 
Namen  des  Herrn,  deines  Gottes,  nicht  missbrauchen."  Our 
translators  have  adopted  the  same  rendering. 

The  ancient  Syriac  Version,  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  Philo,  and 
many  modern  commentators  and  exegetes  understand  the  com- 
mand as  directed  against  false  swearing :  "  Thou  shalt  not  utter 
the  name  of  God  to  a  lie."  So  the  elder  Michaelis  in  his  anno- 
tated Hebrew  Bible,  explains  "  ad  vanum  confirmandum  :  non 
frustra,  nedum,  falso."  Gesenius  in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon  renders 
the  passage,^  "  Du  sollst  den  Namen  Jehova's  nicht  zur  Liige 
aussprechen  ;  nicht  falsch  schworen."  Rosenmiiller  ^  renders  it  : 
"  NoUi  enunciare  nomen  Jova  Dei  tui  ad  falsum  sc.  comproban- 
dum."  Knobel^  reads:  "Nicht  sollst  du  erheben  den  Namen 
Jehova's  zm-  Nichtigkeit ;  "  and  adds,  "  The  prohibition  is  directed 
specially  against  false  swearing." 

This  interpretation  is  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
as  sitrS  here  rendered  "vanity,"  or  with  the  preposition,  "in 
vain,"  elsewhere  means  "  falsehood."  (See  Ps.  xii.  3  (2)  ;  xli.  7 
(6)  ;  Isaiah  lix.  4  ;  Hos.  x.  4.)  To  lift  up,  or  pronounce  the  name 
of  God  for  a  lie,  naturally  means,  to  call  upon  God  to  confirm  a 
falsehood.  The  preposition  b  also  has  its  natural  force.  Compare 
Leviticus  xix.  12,  "  Ye  shall  not  swear  by  my  name  [-ii7.t^b  '  to  a 
he  ']  falsely."  The  general  import  of  the  command  remains  the 
same,  whichever  interpretation  be  adopted.  The  command  not  to 
misuse  the  name  of  God,  includes  false  swearing,  which  is  the 

1  Edit.  Leipzig,  1857,  sub  voce,  S'lf?"'. 

2  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentuni  in  ComiJcndium  redacta,  Leipzig,  1828,  voL  i.  p.  404. 
8  Kurzgefasstes  exegetische  Ilandbuch  zuin  Alien  Testament :  Exodus  und  Leviticus  er- 

WttV<  von  August  Knobel,  Leipzig,  1857,  p.  205. 
VOL.  III.  20 


306  PART  ni.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

greatest  indignity  which  can  be  offered  to  God.  And  as  the  com- 
mand, "  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder,"  includes  all  indulgence  of  ma- 
licious feelings ;  so  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thy- 
self," includes  all  lesser  forms  of  irreverence  in  the  use  of  the 
name  of  God. 

It  is  m-ged,  as  an  objection  to  the  second  interpretation  given 
above,  that  perjury  is  an  offence  against  our  neighbour,  and  there- 
fore belongs  to  the  second  table  of  the  Law ;  and  that  it  is  in 
fact  included  in  the  ninth  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear 
false  witness  against  thy  neighbour."  Bearing  false  testimony 
and  false  swearing  are,  however,  different  offences.  The  first  and 
second  commandment  forbid  the  worship  of  any  other  being  than 
Jehovah,  and  worshipping  Him  in  any  way  not  appointed  in  his 
word ;  and  the  third,  supposing  it  to  forbid  false  swearing,  is  here 
in  place,  as  false  swearing  is  a  practical  denial  of  the  being  or 
perfections  of  God. 

Import  of  the  Command. 

The  word  "  name  "  is  used  in  reference  to  God  in  a  very  com- 
prehensive sense.  It  often  means  a  personal  or  individual  desig- 
nation ;  as  when  God  says,  "  This  is  my  name,  "  i.  g.,  Jehovah. 
Frequently  the  "  name  of  God  "  is  equivalent  to  God  himself. 
To  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  to  call  on  God,  are  synon- 
ymous forms  of  expression.  As  names  are  intended  to  distinguish 
one  person  or  thing  from  another,  anything  distinguishing  or 
characteristic  may  be  included  under  the  term.  The  name  of 
God,  therefore,  includes  everything  by  which  He  makes  Himself 
known.  This  commandment,  therefore,  forbids  all  irreverence  to- 
wards God ;  not  only  the  highest  act  of  irreverence  in  calling  on 
Him  to  bear  witness  to  a  falsehood,  but  also  all  irreverent  use  of 
his  name ;  all  careless,  unnecessary  reference  to  Him,  or  his  attri- 
butes ;  all  indecorous  conduct  in  his  worship  ;  and  in  short,  every 
indication  of  the  want  of  that  fear,  reverence,  and  awe  due  to  a 
Being  infinite  in  all  his  perfections,  on  ^A'hom  we  are  absolutely 
dependent,  and  to  whom  we  are  accountable  for  our  charactei 
and  conduct. 

The  third  commandment,  therefore,  specially  forbids  not  only 
perjury,  but  also  all  profane,  or  unnecessary  oaths,  all  careless 
appeals  to  God,  and  all  irreverent  use  of  his  name.  All  htera- 
ture,  whether  profane  or  Christian,  shows  how  strong  is  the  ten- 
dency in  human  natm^e  to  introduce  the  name  of  God  even  on 
the  most  trivial  occasions.     Not  only  are  those  formulas,  such  as 


§  7.]  THE   THIRD    COMMANDMENT.  SOT 

Adieu,  Good-bye  or  God  be  with  you,  and  God  forbid,  which  may 
have  had  a  pious  origin,  constantly  used  ^yithout  any  recognition 
of  tlieir  true  import,  but  even  persons  professing  to  fear  God 
often  allow  themselves  to  use  his  name  as  a  mere  expression  of 
surprise.  God  is  everywhere  present.  He  hears  all  we  say.  He 
is  worthy  of  the  highest  reverence  ;  and  He  will  not  hold  him 
guiltless  who  on  any  occasion  uses  his  name  irreverently. 

Oaths. 

The  command  not  to  call  upon  God  to  confirm  a  lie,  cannot  be 
considered  as  forbidding  us  to  call  upon  Him  to  confirm  the  truth. 
And  such  is  the  general  nature  of  an  oath.  Oaths  are  of  two 
kinds,  assertatory,  when  we  affirm  a  thing  to  be  true  ;  and  prom- 
issory, when  we  bring  ourselves  under  an  obligation  to  do,  or  to 
forbear  doing  certain  acts.  To  this  class  belong  official  oaths 
and  oaths  of  allegiance.  In  both  cases  th'ere  is  an  appeal  to  God 
as  a  witness.  An  oath,  therefore,  is  in  its  nature  an  act  of  wor- 
ship. It  impUes,  (1.)  An  acknowledgment  of  the  existence  of  God. 
(2.)  Of  his  attributes  of  omnipresence,  omniscience,  justice,  and 
power.  (3.)  Of  his  moral  government  over  the  world  ;  and  (4.)  Of 
our  accountability  to  Him  as  our  Sovereign  and  Judge.  Hence 
"  to  swear  by  the  name  of  Jehovah,"  and  to  acknowledge  Him  as 
God,  are  the  same  thing.     The  former  involves  the  latter. 

Such  being  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  a  man  who  denies  the 
truths  above  mentioned  cannot  take  an  oath.  For  him  the  words 
he  utters  have  no  meaning.  If  he  does  not  believe  that  there  is  a 
God ;  or  suppose  that  he  admits  that  there  is  soine  being  or  force 
which  may  be  called  God,  if  he  does  not  beheve  that  that  Being 
knows  what  the  juror  says,  or  that  He  will  punish  the  false 
swearer,  the  whole  service  is  a  mockery.  It  is  a  great  injustice, 
tending  to  loosen  all  the  bonds  of  society,  to  allow  atheists  to  give 
testimony  in  courts  of  justice.^ 

The  imprecation  usually  introduced  in  the  formula  of  an  oath,  is 
not  essential  to  its  nature.  It  is  indeed  involved  in  the  appeal  to 
God  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  what  we  say,  but  its  direct 
assertion  is  not  necessary.  Indeed,  it  is  not  found  in  any  of  the 
oaths  recorded  in  the  Bible.     Some  strenuously  object  to  its  intro- 

1  In  a  recent  murder  trial  in  one  of  the  courts  of  New  York,  a  young  scientific  physician 
was  called  to  give  testimony  on  what  constitutes  insanity.  He  distinctly  asserted  that 
thought  was  a  function  of  the  brain;  that  where  there  is  no  brain  there  can  be  no  thought; 
and  that  a  disordered  brain  necessitates  disordered  mental  action.  Of  course,  God  having 
no  brain  cannot  be  intelligent;  in  other  words,  there  can  be  no  God.  Such  a  man  may 
be  a  good  chemist  or  a  good  surgeon ;  but  he  is  no  more  competent  to  be  a  witness  in  a 
court  of  justice,  than  he  is  fit  to  be  a  preacher. 


308 


PART  m.  ch.  XIX. -the  law. 


duction,  as  involving  a  renunciation  of  all  liope  of  the  mercy  and 
grace  of  God,  and  as  an  equivalent  to  an  imprecation  on  one's  self 
of  everlasting  perdition. 

The  Lawfulness  of  Oaths. 

The  la^vfulness  of  oaths  may  be  inferred,  — 

1.  From  their  nature.  Being  acts  of  worship  involving  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God,  and  of  our 
responsibility  to  Him,  they  are  in  thek  nature  good.  They  are  not 
superstitious,  founded  on  wrong  ideas  of  God  or  of  his  relation  to 
the  world ;  nor  are  they  irreverent ;  nor  are  they  useless.  They 
have  a  real  power  over  the  consciences  of  men ;  and  that  power 
is  the  greater  according  as  the  faith  of  the  juror  and  of  society 
in  the  truths  of  rehgion,  is  the  more  intelligent  and  the  stronger. 

2.  In  the  Scriptures,  oaths,  on  proper  occasions,  are  not  only 
permitted,  but  commanded.  "  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  shalt  swear  by  his  name.  (Deut.  vi.  13.)  "  He  who 
blesseth  himself  in  the  earth,  shall  bless  himself  in  the  God  of 
truth  ;  and  he  that  sweareth  in  the  earth,  shall  swear  by  the  God 
of  truth."  (Is.  Ixv.  16.)  "  It  shall  come  to  pass,  if  they  will  dih- 
gently  learn  the  ways  of  my  people,  to  swear  by  my  name,  Jeho- 
vah hveth  ;  (as  they  taught  my  people  to  swear  by  Baal ;)  then 
shall  they  be  built  in  the  midst  of  my  people."  (Jer.  xii.  16  ;  iv. 
2.)  God  Himself  is  represented  as  swearing.  (Psalms  ex.  4  ;  Heb- 
rews vii.  21.)  "  When  God  made  promise  to  Abraham,  because  he 
could  swear  by  no  greater,  he  sware  by  himself."  (Heb.  vi.  13.) 
Our  blessed  Lord  also,  when  put  upon  his  oath  by  the  high  priest, 
did  not  hesitate  to  answer.  (Matt.  xxvi.  63.)  The  words  are, 
'E^opKi'^w  o-e  Kara  rov  ®€i)v  rov  ^ojvtos,  which  are  corrcctly  rendered  by 
our  version,  "  I  adjure  thee  (caU  on  thee  to  swear)  by  the  hving 
God."  Meyer  in  his  comment  on  this  passage  says  :  "  An  affir- 
mative answer  to  this  formula  was  an  oath  in  the  full  meaning  of 
the  word."  And  our  Lord's  reply,  "  Thou  sayest,"  is  the  usual 
Rabbinical  form  of  direct  affirmation.^  The  Hebrew  word  17''2trri 
is  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  by  opKt'^w  and  iiopKL^w,  and  in  the 
Vulgate  by  adjuro.  See  Genesis  1.  5,  "  My  father  made  me  swear, 
uypKLae  /ac."  Num.  V.  19,  "  The  priest  shaU.  charge  her  by  an  oath', 
ofjKiet  avTTjvy  It  appears  from  this  passage  as  well  as  from  others 
in  the  Old  Testament,  that  oaths  were  on  certain  occasions  en- 
joined by  God  himself.  (Ex.  xxii.  10.)  They  cannot,  therefctrev 
be  unlawful. 

1  See  Schoettgen's  Hor.  Hebr.  et  Talm.,  Matt.  v.  34;  Dresden  and  Leipzig,  1733,  p.  iO. 


§  7.J  THE   THIRD    COMMANDMENT.  309 

Seeing,  then,  that  an  oath  is  an  act  of  worship  ;  that  it  is  en- 
joined on  suitable  occasions ;  that  our  Lord  himself  submitted  to  be 
put  upon  his  oath  ;  and  that  the  Apostles  did  not  hesitate  to  call 
God  to  witness  to  the  truth  of  what  they  said ;  we  cannot  admit 
that  Christ  intended  to  pronounce  all  oaths  unlawful,  when  he 
said,  as  recorded  in  Matthew  v.  34,  "  Swear  not  at  all."  This 
would  be  to  suppose  that  Scripture  can  contradict  Scripture,  and 
that  Christ's  conduct  did  not  conform  to  his  precepts.  Neverthe- 
less, his  words  are  very  explicit.  They  mean  in  Greek  just  what 
our  version  makes  them  mean.  Our  Lord  did  say,  "  Swear  not  at 
all."  But  in  the  sixth  commandment  it  is  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill."  That,  however,  does  not  mean  that  we  may  not  Idll  ani- 
mals for  food ;  for  that  is  permitted  and  commanded.  It  does  not 
forbid  homicide  in  self-defence,  for  that  also  is  permitted.  Neither 
does  it  forbid  capital  punishment ;  for  that  is  not  only  permitted 
but  even  commanded.  The  meaning  of  this  command  has  never 
been  doubted  or  disputed,  because  it  is  sufficiently  explained  by 
the  context  and  occasion,  and  by  the  light  shed  upon  it  by  other 
parts  of  Scripture.  As,  therefore,  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,"  forbids  only  unlawful  killing ;  so  also  the  command, 
"  Swear  not  at  all,"  forbids  only  unlawful  swearing. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  context.  A  great  part  of 
our  Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  devoted  to  the  correction  of 
perversions  of  the  law,  introduced  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
They  made  the  sixth  commandment  to  forbid  only  murder  ;  our 
Lord  said  that  it  forbade  all  malicious  passions.  They  limited 
the  seventh  commandment  to  the  outward  act ;  He  extended 
it  to  the  inward  desire.  They  made  the  precept  to  love  our 
neighbour  consistent  with  hating  our  enemies ;  Christ  says, 
"  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you."  In  like  man- 
ner, the  Scribes  taught  that  the  law  allowed  all  kinds  of  swearing, 
and  swearing  on  all  occasions,  provided  a  man  did  not  forswear 
himself  ;  but  our  Lord  said,  I  say  unto  you,  in  your  communica- 
tions swear  not  at  all ;  this  is  plain  from  ver.  37,  "  Let  your  com- 
munications (Aoyos,  word,  talk)  be  Yea,  yea  ;  Nay,  nay  :  for 
whatsoever  is  more  than  these,  cometh  of  evil."  It  is  unneces- 
sary, colloquial,  irreverent  swearing  our  Lord  condemns.  This  has 
nothing  to  do  with  those  solemn  acts  of  worship,  permitted  and 
commanded  in  the  word  of  God.  The  Jews  of  that  age  were  espe- 
cially addicted  to  colloquial  swearing,  holding  that  the  law  for- 
bade only  false  swearing,  or  swearing  by  the  name  of  false  gods  ;  * 

1  See  Meyer  on  this  passage,  who  refers  to  Philo,  De  Spec.  Leg- ;  A.  Lightfoot,  Ho,  <r  ; 


310  PART  ni.   ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

hence  our  Lord  liad  the  more  occasion  to  rebuke  this  sin,  aud 
show  the  evil  of  any  such  adjurations. 

When  are  Oaths  lawful. 

1.  As  an  oath  involves  an  act  of  worship,  it  is  plain  that  it 
should  not  be  taken  on  any  trivial  occasion,  or  in  an  irreverent 
manner. 

2.  An  oath  is  lawful  when  prescribed  and  administered  by 
duly  authorized  officers  of  the  State,  or  of  the  Church ;  they  are 
the  "  ministers  of  God,"  acting  in  his  name  and  by  his  authority. 
There  are  many  who  do  not  regard  it  as  proper  that  an  oath 
should  ever  be  taken,  except  when  thus  imposed  by  those  in 
authority.  The  Church  of  England  in  the  thirty-ninth  article, 
says :  "  As  we  confess  that  vain  and  rash  swearing  is  forbidden 
Christian  men  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  James  his  Apos- 
tle ;  so  we  judge  that  Christian  religion  doth  not  prohibit,  but  that 
a  man  may  swear  when  the  magistrate  requireth,  in  a  cause  of 
faith  and  charity,  so  it  be  done  according  to  the  prophet's  teach- 
ing, in  justice,  judgment,  and  truth."  The  same  ground  has  been 
taken  by  niany  moral  philosophers  and  theologians. 

There  does  not,  however,  seem  to  be  any  sufficient  reason  for 
this  restriction,  either  in  the  nature  or.  design  of  an  oath,  or  in 
the  teachings  of  Scripture.  The  oath  being  an  appeal  to  God  to 
bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  our  declarations,  or  the  sincerity  of 
our  promises,  there  is  no  reason  why  this  appeal  should  not  be 
made  whenever  any  important  end  is  to  be  accomplished  by  it. 
There  should  be  a  necessity  for  it ;  that  is,  no  man  should  swear 
lightly  or  profanely,  but  only  when  all  the  conditions  which 
justify  this  appeal  to  God  are  present.  According  to  the  old  law 
those  conditions  are,  "  judicium  in  jurante,  justitia  in  objecto, 
veracitas  in  mente."  That  is,  the  juror  must  be  competent. 
He  must  have  a  just  judgment  of  the  nature  and  obligation  of  an 
oath,  so  as  to  understand  what  he  is  about  to  do.  Therefore  an 
idiot,  a  child,  or  an  unbeliever  cannot  properly  be  put  upon  his 
oath.  By  "  justitia  in  objecto,"  is  meant  that  the  object  con- 
cerning which  the  oath  is  taken,  should  be  a  proper  object.  .  If 
it  be  a  promissory  oath,  the  thing  we  engage  to  do  must  be  pos- 
sible and  lawful ;  if  an  assertatory  oath,  the  object  must  have 
due  importance ;  it  must  be  within  the  knowledge  of  the  juror ; 
and  there  must  be  an  adequate  reason  why  this  appeal  to  God 

and  Menschen,  N.  T.  ex  Talm.  illustr.     See,  also,  Winer's  Realwdrterhuch,  and  Tholuck'i 
Auslegung  der  Bergpredigt  Christi,  3d  edit.  Hamburg,  1845. 


I 


§  7.]  THE   THIRD   COMMANDMENT.  311 

should  be  made.  The  "  veracitas  in  mente,"  indudes  the  sincere 
purpose  of  doing  what  we  promise,  or  of  telKng  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  in  the 
case  in  which  we  testify.  This  excludes  all  intention  to  deceive, 
all  mental  reservation,  and  all  designed  ambiguity  of  language. 
All  these  conditions  may  be  present  in  private,  as  well  as  in 
judicial  or  official  oaths. 

Then  again,  as  the  design  of  an  oath  is  to  produce  conviction 
of  the  truth,  to  satisfy  others  of  our  sincerity  and  fidelity,  and 
to  make  an  end  of  controversy,  it  is  evident  that  circumstances 
may  arise  in  private  life,  or  in  the  intercourse  of  a  man  with  his 
fellow-men,  when  an  oath  may  be  of  the  greatest  importance. 
If  we  risk  a  great  deal  on  the  fidelity  or  veracity  of  a  man,  we 
have  a  right  to  bind  him  by  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  ;  or  if  it  is 
of  great  importance  that  others  should  confide  in  our  veracity  or 
fidelity,  it  may  be  right  to  give  them  the  assurance  which  an 
oath  is  suited  and  intended  to  afford. 

As  to  the  Scriptural  examples,  by  far  the  greater  number  of 
the  oaths  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and  that  with  the  implied  appro- 
bation of  God,  are  of  a  non-judicial  character.  Abraham  swore  to 
Abimelech.  (Gen.  xxi.  23.)  Abraham  made  his  servant  SAvear  to 
him.  (Gen.  xxiv.  3.)  Isaac  and  Abimelech  interchanged  oaths. 
(Gen.  xxvi.  31.)  Jacob  caused  Joseph  to  swear  not  to  bury  him  in 
Egypt,  (xlvii.  31.)  Joseph  exacted  a  similar  oath  from  his  breth- 
ren. So  we  read  of  David's  swearing  to  Saul,  and  to  Jonathan, 
of  Jonathan's  to  David,  and  of  David's  to  Shimei.  Such  private 
oaths  seem  at  times  to  have  been  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law. 
In  Exodus  xxii.  19,  it  is  said,  if  a  man  deliver  any  animal  to  his 
neighbour  for  safe-keeping,  and  it  die  on  his  hands,  "  then  shall 
an  oath  of  the  Lord  be  between  them  both,  that  he  hath  not 
put  his  hand  unto  his  neighbour's  goods."  In  the  New  Testament 
we  find  the  Apostle  frequently  appealing  to  God  to  witness  to 
the  truth  of  what  he  said  (Rom.  i.  9  ;  Phil.  i.  8  ;  1  Thess.  ii. 
6,  10)  ;  doing  this  also  in  the  most  formal  manner,  as  in  2  Corin- 
thians i.  23,  "  I  call  God  for  a  record  upon  my  soul." 

Augustine's  rule  on  this  subject  is  good :  "  Quantum  ad  me 
pertinet,  juro  ;  sed  quantum  mihi  videtur,  magna  necessitate  com- 
putus. "^  The  multiplicity  of  oaths  is  a  great  evil.  The  rapid 
and  irreverent  administration  of  them  is  profane. 

1  Sermo  chxxx.  10  [ix.] ;   Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol.  v.  p.  1260,  a 


S12  PART  m.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

The  Form  of  an  Oath. 
Under  the  Old  Testament,  in  voluntary  oaths  the  usual  form 
was,  "  The  Lord  do  so  to  me,  and  more  also."  (Ruth  i.  17  ;  2 
Sam.  iii.  9,  35  ;  1  Kings  ii.  23  ;  2  Kings  vi.  31.)  Or  simply,  "  As 
the  Lord  liveth."  (Ruth  iii.  13  ;  Judges  viii.  19  ;  2  Sam.  ii.  27 ; 
Jer.  xxxviii.  16)  ;  or  as  it  is  in  Jeremiah  xlii.  5,  "  The  LoRD  be  a 
true  and  faithful  witness."  In  judicial  proceedings  the  oath  con- 
sisted in  a  simple  assent  to  the  adjuration,  which  assent  was  ex- 
pressed in  Hebrew  by  "j:;:s,  and  in  Greek  by  av  €t7ras.  The  form 
is  a  matter  of  indifference ;  any  form  of  words  which  implies 
an  appeal  to  God  as  a  witness  is  an  oath.  In  swearing,  the  right 
hand  was  usually  elevated  towards  heaven.  Genesis  xiv.  22, 
"  Abram  said  to  the  king  of  Sodom,  I  have  hft  up  mine  hand  unto 
the  Lord,  the  most  high  God,  the  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth." 
Hence  "  to  lift  up  the  hand  "  was  to  swear.  (See  Deut.  xxxii. 
40 ;  Ex.  vi.  8  (in  the  Hebrew)  ;  Ezek.  xx.  5.)  Lifting  up 
the  hand  was  evidently  intended  to  intimate  that  the  juror  ap- 
pealed to  the  God  of  heaven.  Among  Christians  it  is  usual  to  put 
the  hand  upon  the  Bible,  to  indicate  that  the  oath  is  taken  in  the 
name  of  the  God  of  the  Bible,  and  that  the  judgment  invoked  in 
case  of  perjury  is  that  which  the  Bible  denounces  against  false 
swearing.  Kissing  the  Bible,  another  usual  part  of  the  ceremonial 
of  an  oath,  is  an  expression  of  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the  word  of 
God.  There  is  nothing  unseemly  or  superstitious  in  this.  On 
the  contrary,  instead  of  appealing  to  the  God  of  nature,  it  is  most 
appropriate  that  the  Christian  should  appeal  to  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  who,  through  Jesus  Christ,  is  our  reconciled  God  and 
Father. 

Rules  which  determine  the  Interpretation  and  Obligation  of  an 

Oath. 
An  oath  must  be  interpreted  according  to  the  plain  natural 
meaning  of  the  words,  or  the  sense  in  which  they  are  understood 
by  the  party  to  whom  the  oath  is  given  or  by  whom  it  is  imposed. 
This  is  a  plain  dictate  of  honesty.  If  the  juror  understands  the 
oath  in  a  sense  different  from  tliat  attached  to  it  by  the  party  to 
whom  it  is  given,  the  whole  service  is  a  deceit  and  mockery.  The 
commander  of  whom  Paley  speaks,  who  swore  to  the  garrison  of 
a  besieged  town  that  if  they  surrendered,  a  drop  of  their  blood 
should  not  be  shed,  and  buried  them  all  alive,  was  guilty,  not 
only  of  perjury,  but  also  of  dastardly  and  cruel  mockery.     The 


§  7.]  THE   THIRD   COMMANDMENT.  313 

animus  imponentis^  as  is  universally  admitted,  must  tlierefore 
determine  the  interpretation  of  an  oath.  It  was  the  fact  that  the 
Jesuits  inculcated  the  lawfulness  of  mental  reservation,  which 
more  than  anything  else  made  them  an  abomination  in  the  eyes 
of  all  Christendom.  It  was  this  which  fiu'iiished  the  sharpest 
thong  to  the  scourge  with  which  Pascal  drove  them  out  of 
Europe. 

This  is  a  matter  about  which  men  who  mean  to  be  honest  are 
not  always  sufficiently  careful.  Their  conscience  is  satisfied  if 
what  they  say  will  bear  an  interpretation  consistent  vdth.  the 
truth,  although  the  obvious  sense  is  not  true.^ 

No  oath  is  obligatory  which  binds  a  man  to  do  what  is  unlawful 
or  impossible.  The  sin  lies  in  taldng  such  an  oath,  not  in  break- 
ing it.  The  reason  of  this  rule  is,  that  no  man  can  bring  himself 
under  an  obligation  to  commit  a  sin.  Herod  was  not  bound  to 
keep  his  oath  to  the  daughter  of  Herodias  when  she  demanded 
the  head  of  John  the  Baptist.  Neither  were  the  forty  men,  who 
had  bound  themselves  with  "  an  oath  of  execration  "  to  kill  Paul. 
But  an  oath  voluntarily  taken  to  do  what  is  lawful  and  within  the 
power  of  the  juror  binds  the  conscience,  (a.)  Even  when  fulfilhng 
it  involves  injury  to  the  temporal  interests  of  the  juror.  The 
Bible  pronounces  the  man  blessed  who  "  swearethto  his  own  hurt 
and  changeth  not."  (Ps.  xv.  4.)  (5.)  When  the  oath  is  obtained 
by  deceit  or  violence.  In  the  latter  case  the  juror  makes  a  choice 
of  evils.  He  swears  to  make  a  sacrifice  to  save  himself  from 
what  he  dreads  more  than  the  loss  of  what  he  promises  to  relin- 
quish. This  may  often  be  a  hard  case.  But  such  is  the  solemnity 
of  an  oath,  and  such  the  importance  of  its  inviolable  sanctity  being 
preserved,  that  it  is  better  to  suffer  injustice  than  that  an  oath 
should  be  broken.  The  case  where  an  oath  is 'obtained  by  deceit 
is  more  difficult,  for  when  such  deceit  is  practised  the  juror  did 
not  intend  to  assume  the  obligation  which  the  oath  imposes.  He 
might,  therefore,  plausibly  argue  that  if  he  did  not  intend  to 
assume  an  obhgation,  it  was  not  assumed.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  principle  involved  in  the  commercial  maxim,  caveat 
emptor^  applies  to  oaths.  A  man  is  bound  to  guard  against  de- 
ception ;  and  if  deceived  he  must  take  the  consequences.  Besides, 
those  to  whom  the  oath  is  given  trust  to  it,  and  act  upon  it,  and, 
in  a  certain  sense  at  least,  acquire  rights  under  it.  The  Scriptures, 
however,  in  this  as  in  all  other  cases,  are  our  safest  guide.    When 

1  A  gentleman  was  charged  with  having  written  a  certain  article  in  a  newspaper.    H« 
declared  that  he  did  not  write  it.     That  was  true.     But  he  had  dictated  it. 


B14  PART   in.     Cn.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

the  Israelites  conquered  Canaan,  the  Gibeonites  who  dwelt  in  the 
land,  sent  delegates  to  Joshua  pretending  that  they  were  from  a 
distant  country,  and  "  Joshua  made  peace  with  them,  and  made 
a  league  with  them,  to  let  them  live  :  and  the  princes  of  the  con- 
gregation sware  unto  them."  When  the  deception  was  discovered, 
the  people  clamoured  for  their  extermination.  "But  all  the 
princes  said  unto  all  the  congregation.  We  have  sworn  unto  them 
by  the  Loed  God  of  Israel :  now,  therefore,  we  may  not  touch 
them."  (Joshua  ix.  15,  19.)  Tliis  oath,  as  appears  from  2  Sam- 
uel xxi.  1,  was  sanctioned  by  God  and  the  people  were  punished 
for  violating  it. 

Romish  Doctrine. 

The  principle  on  which  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  Church 
assume  the  right  to  free  men  from  the  obligation  of  their  oaths,  is 
that  no  man  can  bind  himself  to  do  what  is  sinful.  It  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Church  to  decide  what  is  sinful.  If  therefore  the 
Church  decide  that  an  oath  to  obey  a  sovereign  disobedient  to  the 
Pope,  to  preserve  inviolate  a  safe  conduct,  or  to  keep  faith  with 
heretics  or  infidels  is  sinful,  the  obligation  of  every  such  oath 
ceases  as  soon  as  the  judgment  of  the  Church  is  rendered. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  "  Cui  competit  potestas  dispensandi 
super  juramento  ?  "  the  Romish  theologians  answer :  "  Prin- 
cipaliter  competit  summo  Pontifici ;  non  tamen  nisi  ex  rationabih 
causa,  quia  dispensat  in  jure  alieno :  competit  etiam  jure  ordinario 
Episcopis,  non  Parochis.  Requirit  autem  hfec  dispensatio  potes- 
tatem  jurisdictionis  majoris."^  The  casuists,  on  this  as  on  all 
other  practical  subjects,  go  into  the  most  minute  details  and  subtle 
distinctions.  Dens,  for  example,  in  the  section  above  quoted, 
gives  no  less  than  ten  conditions  under  which  the  obUgation  of  an 
oath  ceases.  To  the  question :  "  Quibus  modis  potest  cessare 
obhgatio  juramenti  promissorii  ?  "  he  answers:  "1.  Irritatione. 
2.  Dispensatione  et  relaxatione.  3.  Commutations  4.  Materiae 
mutatione  vel  subtractione.  5.  Cessante  fine  totali  complete. 
6.  Ratione  conditionis  non  adimpletffi.  7.  Cessante  principah  obh- 
gatione  cessat  juramentum  pure  accessorium.  8.  Non  acceptatione, 
et  condonatione,  sen  remissione.  9.  Si  juramentum  incipiat  vergere 
in  deteriorem  exitum,  vel  in  prge judicium  boni  communis,  vel  etiam 
alicujus  particularis,  v.  g.  quis  juravit  occultare  furtum  alterius, 
sed  inde  alter  liberius  prolabitur  ad  alia  furta :  item  cessat  jura- 
mentum, quando  directe  est  majoris  boni  impeditivum.  10.  Deni- 

1  Theologia  Moralis  Dogmatica  Reverendi  et  Eruditissimi  Domini  Petri  Dens ;  de  Jura 
mento,  n.  177.  edit.  Dublin,  1832,  vol.  iv.  pp.  214-216. 


§  7.J  THE   THIRD   COMMANDMENT.  315 

que  cessat  obligatio  juramenti,  licet  improprie,  per  adimpletionem 
sive  totalem  sohitioiiem  rei  juratre  :  et  e  contra  dicitur  cessare  ab 
initio,  quia  juramentum  fuit  nullum,  sive  quia  nullam  ab  initio 
obligation  em  produxit."  Number  nine  opens  a  very  wide  door  ; 
the  last  clause  especially  seems  to  teach  that  a  promissory  oath 
ceases  to  bind  whenever  it  is  expedient  to  break  it.^ 

The  whole  Romish  system  is  the  masterpiece  of  the  "  wisdom 
of  the  world."  As  many  promissory  oaths  are  not  obligatory,  it 
would  seem  to  be  wise,  instead  of  leaving  the  question  of  their 
continued  obhgation  to  be  decided  by  the  individual  juror,  who  is 
so  liable  to  be  undul}^  biased,  to  refer  the  matter  to  some  compe- 
tent authority.  This  would  tend  to  prevent  false  judgments,  to 
satisfy  the  conscience  of  the  juror  and  the  public  mind.  And  as 
the  question  is  a  matter  of  morals  and  religion,  it  would  seem  to 
be  proper  that  the  decision  should  be  referred  to  the  organs  of  the 
Church.  Rome  makes  all  these  seemingly  wise  arrangements. 
But  as  -God  has  exalted  no  human  authority  over  the  individual 
conscience,  as  no  man  can  delegate  his  responsibility  to  another, 
but  every  man  must  answer  to  God  for  himself,  it  is  clear  that 
no  such  arrangement  can  be  consistent  with  the  divine  will. 
Again,  if  it  were  true  that  the  Church  were  divinely  guided  so 
as  to  be  infallible  in  its  judgment,  this  tremendous  power  over 
the  consciences  of  men  might  be  safely  intrusted  to  it ;  but  as 
in  fact  the  representatives  of  the  Church  are  men  of  like  passions 
as  other  men,  and  no  more  infallible  than  their  fellows,  Roman- 
ism is  nothing  more  than  a  device  to  put  the  prerogatives  and 
power  of  God  into  the  hands  of  sinful  men.  History  teaches 
how  this  usurped  power  has  been  used. 

Vows. 

Vows  are  essentially  different  from  oaths,  in  that  they  do  not 
involve  any  appeal  to  God  as  a  witness,  or  any  imprecation  of 
his  displeasure.  A  vow  is  simply  a  promise  made  to  God.  The 
conditions  of  a  lawful  vow  are,  first,  as  to  the  object,  or  matter 
of  the  vow,  (1.)  That  it  be  something  in  itself  lawful.  (2.) 
That  it  be  acceptable  to  God.  (3.)  That  it  be  within  our  own 
power.  (4.)  That  it  be  for  our  spiritual  edification.  Secondly, 
as  to  the  person  making  the  vow,  (1.)  That  he  be  competent ; 
that  is,  that  he  have  sufficient  intelligence,  and  that  he  be  sui 

1  In  conversation  with  a  very  intelligent  Romish  priest  who  had  been  educated  at  Maj- 
nooth,  the  question  was  asked,  What  was  the  effect  of  a  course  of  "  Moral  Theology  "  de- 
signed to  train  priests  for  the  confessional?  The  prompt  answer  was,  Utterly  to  destroy  the 
moral  sense. 


316  PART   III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

juris.  A  child  is  not  competent  to  make  a  vow  ;  neither  is  one 
under  authority  so  that  he  has  not  liberty  of  action  as  to  the 
matter  vowed.  (2.)  That  he  act  with  due  deliberation  and 
solemnity  ;  for  a  vow  is  an  act  of  worship.  (3.)  That  it  be 
made  voluntarily,  and  observed  cheerfully. 

All  these  principles  are  recognized  in  the  Bible.  "  When 
thou  shalt  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  thou  shalt  not 
slack  to  pay  it :  for  the  Lord  thy  God  will  surely  require  it  of 
thee  ;  and  it  would  be  sin  in  thee.  But  if  thou  shalt  forbear 
to  vow,  it  shall  be  no  sin  in  thee.  That  which  is  gone  out  of 
thy  lips  thou  shalt  keep  and  perform :  even  a  freewill  offering, 
according  as  thou  hast  vowed  unto  the  LoRD  thy  God,  which 
thou  hast  promised  with  thy  mouth."  (Deut.  xxiii.  21-23.)  In 
Numbers  xxx.  3-5,  it  is  enacted  that  if  a  woman  in  her  father's 
house  make  a  vow,  and  her  father  disallow  it,  it  shall  not  stand, 
"  and  the  LoRD  shall  forgive  her,  because  her  father  disallowed 
her."  The  same  rule  is  applied  to  wives  and  to  children,  on 
the  obvious  principle,  that  where  the  rights  of  others  are  con- 
cerned, we  are  not  at  liberty  to  disregard  them. 

All  the  conditions  requisite  to  the  lawfulness  of  a  vow,  may 
be  included  under  the  old  formula,  "  judicium  in  vovente,  justitia 
in  objecto,  Veritas  in  mente."  There  are  two  conditions  insisted 
upon  by  Romanists  to  which  Protestants  do  not  consent.  The 
one  is  that  a  vow  must  be  "  de  meliore  bono,"  i.  e.,  for  a  greater 
good.  If  a  man  vows  to  devote  himself  to  the  priesthood,  to 
make  a  pilgrimage,  to  found  a  church,  or  to  become  a  monk, 
the  thing  vowed  is  not  only  good  in  itself,  but  it  is  better  than 
its  opposite.  The  other  condition  is,  that  the  thing  vowed  must 
be  in  itself  not  obligatory,  so  that  the  sphere  of  duty  is  enlarged 
by  the  vow.  These  conditions  are  included  in  those  laid  down 
by  Dens.  ^  He  says :  "  Quinque  ex  causis  provenire,  quod  aliquid 
non  sit  apta  materia  voti ;  1°.  quia  est  impossibile  ;  2°.  quia  est 
necessarium  ;  3°.  quia  est  illicitum  ;  4°.  quia  est  indifferens  vel 
inutile  ;  5°.  quia  non  est  bonum  melius."  The  two  conditions 
just  specified  no  doubt  concur  in  many  vows  acceptable  to  God, 
but  they  are  not  essential.  A  man  may  vow  to  do  what  he 
is  bound  to  do,  as  is  the  case  with  every  man  who  consecrates 
himself  to  God  in  baptism.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  thing 
vowed  should  be  in  its  own  nature  a  greater  good.  A  man 
may  bind  himself  to  a  work  out  of  gratitude  to  God,  which  in 
its  own  nature   is  indifferent.     This   was  the   case   with  many 

1  Tractatus  de  Voto ;  Theolor/ia,  edit.  Dublin,  1832,  vol.  iv.  n.  91,  p.  111. 


§  7.]  THE  THIRD    COJ^IMANDMENT.  317 

of  the  particulars  included  in  tlie  vows  of  the  Nazarite.  There 
was  no  special  virtue  in  abstaining  from  wine,  vinegar,  grapes 
moist  or  dry,  or  in  letting  "  the  locks  of  the  hair  of  his  head 
grow."  (Num.  vi.  3-5.)  The  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject 
is  connected  with  the  distinction  which  Papists  make  between 
precepts  and  counsels.  The  former  bind  the  conscience,  the 
others  do  not.  There  is  special  merit,  according  to  their  theory, 
in  doing  more  than  is  commanded.  No  man  is  commanded  to 
devote  himself  to  a  life  of  obedience,  celibacy,  and  poverty,  but 
if  he  does,  so  much  the  better  ;  he  has  the  greater  merit. 

As  usual,  the  Romanists  connect  so  many  subordinate  rules 
with  the  general  principles  laid  down  that  they  are  explained 
away,  or  rendered  of  little  use.  Thus  the  rule  that  the  matter 
of  a  vow  must  be  "  bonum  melius,"  is  explained  to  mean  better 
in  itself  considered,  and  not  better  in  relation  to  the  person  mak- 
ing the  vow.  Thus  it  may  be  very  injurious  to  a  man's  spiritual 
interests  to  be  bound  by  monastic  vows  ;  nevertheless,  as  the 
monastic  life  is  in  itself  a  "  bonum  melius,"  the  vows  once  taken 
are  obligatory.  Then  as  to  the  condition  of  possibility  ;  if  pos- 
sible as  to  the  substance,  but  impossible  as  to  the  accidents,  the 
vow  is  binding.  Thus  if  a  man  vows  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to 
Jerusalem  on  his  knees,  although  going  on  his  knees  be  impos- 
sible, he  is  bound  to  go  in  some  way. 

Lawfulness  of  Vows. 

On  this  subject  there  is  little  or  no  diversity  of  opinion.  That 
they  are  lawful  appears,  — 

1.  From  their  nature.  A  vow  is  simply  a  promise  made  to 
God.  It  may  be  an  expression  of  gratitude  for  some  signal 
favour  already  given,  or  a  pledge  to  manifest  such  gratitude  for 
some  blessing  desired  should  God  see  fit  to  grant  it.  Thus  Jacob 
vowed  that  if  God  would  bring  him  back  in  peace  to  his  father's 
house,  he  would  consecrate  to  Him  the  tenth  of  all  that  he  pos- 
sessed. The  Bible,  and  especially  the  Psalms,  abound  with 
examples  of  such  vows  of  thank-offerings  to  God.  Even  Calvin, 
notwithstanding  his  deep  sense  of  the  evils  entailed  on  the 
Church  by  the  abuse  of  vows  by  the  Romanists,  says,  "  Ejusmodi 
vota  hodie  quoque  nobis  in  usu  esse  possunt,  quoties  nos  Dominus 
vel  a  clade  aliqua,  vel  a  morbo  difficili,  vel  ab  aUo  quovis  dis- 
crimine  eripuit.  Neque  enim  a  pii  hominis  officio  tunc  abhorret, 
votivam  oblationem,  velut  sollenne  recognitionis  symbolum,  Deo 
consecrare  :  ne  ingratus  erga  ejus  benignitatem  videatur."  ^     He 

1  Imtitutio,  IV.  xiii.  4,  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  par.  ii.  p.  338. 


318  PART  III.     Ch.  XIX. —  the   law. 

also  recognizes  the  propriety  of  vows  of  abstinence  from  indul- 
gences -whicli  we  have  found  to  be  injurious  ;  and  also  of  vows 
the  end  of  which  is  to  render  us  more  mindful  of  duties  which 
we  may  be  mclined  to  neglect.  In  all  such  vows  there  is  a  de- 
vout recognition  of  God,  and  of  our  obligations  to  Hun.  They, 
therefore,  as  well  as  oaths,  are  acts  of  worship.  They  are 
regarded  as  such  in  the  Symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 
Thus,  for  example,  the  "  Declaratio  Thoruniensis "  ^  includes, 
under  acts  of  worship,  "  jusjurandum  legitimum,  quo  Deum  cor- 
dium  inspectorem,  ut  veritatis  testem,  et  falsitatis  vindicem  ap- 
pellamus.  Denique  votum  sacrum,  quo  vel  nos  ipsos,  vel  res 
aut  actiones  nostras  Deo,  velut  sacrificium  quoddam  spirituale, 
consecramus  et  devovemus." 

2.  The  fact  that  the  Scriptures  contain  so  many  examples  of 
vows,  and  so  many  injunctions  to  their  faithful  observance,  is  a 
sufficient  proof  that  in  their  place,  and  on  proper  occasions,  they 
are  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 

3.  This  is  further  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  baptismal 
covenant  is  of  the  nature  of  a  vow.  In  that  ordinance  we  sol- 
emnly promise  to  take  God  the  Father  to  be  our  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  to  be  our  Saviour,  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  our 
Sanctifier,  and  his  word  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  in  that 
ordinance  we  consecrate  ourselves  to  Christ  as  the  purchase  of 
his  blood,  and  vow  to  be  faithful  to  Him  to  the  end.  The  same 
thing  is  true  also  of  the  marriage  covenant,  because  the  promises 
therein  made  are  not  merely  between  the  parties,  but  by  both 
parties  to  the  contract,  to  God. 

But  while  the  lawfulness  of  vows  is  to  be  admitted,  they 
should  not  be  unduly  multiplied,  or  made  on  slight  occasions,  or 
allowed  to  interfere  with  our  Christian  hberty.  Not  only  have 
the  violation  of  these  rules  been  productive  of  the  greatest  evils 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  Protestant  Christians  also  have 
often  reduced  tliemselves  to  a  miserable  state  of  bondage  by  the 
multiplication  of  vows.  When  such  cases  occur,  it  is  healthful 
and  right  for  the  Christian  to  assert  his  liberty.  As  a  believer 
cannot  rightfully  be  brought  into  bondage  to  men,  so  neither 
can  he  rightfully  make  a  slave  of  himself.  He  should  remember 
that  God  prefers  mercy  to  sacrifice  ;  that  no  service  is  accept- 
able to  Him  which  is  injurious  to  us  ;  that  He  does  not  require 
us  to  observe  promises  which  we  ought  never  to  have  made 

1  De  Cultu  Dei,  5 ;  Niemeyer,  Collectlo  Confessionum,  Leipzipr,  1840,  p.  678. 


§  7.]  THE   THIRD   COMMANDMENT.  319 

and  that  vows  about  trifles  are  irreverent,  and  should  neither  be 
made  nor  regarded,  but  should  be  repented  of  as  sins.  Even 
Thomas  Aquinas  says,  "  Vota  quae  sunt  de  rebus  vanis  et  inu- 
tilibus,  sunt  magis  deridenda,  quam  servanda."  ^ 

Monastic   Vows. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  doors  of  all  the  monas- 
teries in  lands  in  which  Protestants  had  the  power,  were  thrown 
open,  and  their  inmates  declared  free  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
man,  from  the  vows  by  which  they  had  hitherto  been  bound. 
Protestants  did  not  maintain  that  there  was  anything  intrinsic- 
ally wrong  in  a  man,  or  a  company  of  men  renouncing  the  ordi 
nary  avocations  of  life,  and  devoting  himself  or  themselves  to  a 
religious  life.  Nor  did  they  object  to  such  men  living  together 
and  conforming  to  a  prescribed  rule  of  discipline ;  nor  did  they 
deny  that  such  institutions  under  proper  regulations,  might  be, 
and  in  fact  had  been  of  great  and  manifold  utility.  They  had 
been  places  of  security  for  those  who  had  no  taste  for  the  conflicts 
by  which  all  Christendom  was  so  long  agitated.  In  many  cases 
they  were  places  of  education  and  seats  of  learning.  Their  ob- 
jections to  them  were,  — 

1.  That  they  had  been  perverted  from  their  original  design, 
and  had  become  the  sources  of  evil  and  not  of  good,  in  every  part 
of  the  Church.  Instead  of  its  being  free  to  every  one  to  enter 
and  to  leave  these  institutions  at  discretion,  those  once  initiated 
were  bound  for  life  by  the  vows  which  they  had  made,  and  in- 
stead of  the  obligations  assumed  being  rational  and  Scriptural, 
they  were  unreasonable  and  unscriptural.  Instead  of  the  inmates 
of  these  institutions  supporting  themselves  by  their  own  labour, 
they  were  allowed  to  Uve  in  idleness,  supported  by  alms  or  by  the 
revenues  of  the  convents,  which  had  in  many  cases  become  enor- 
mous. This  objection  was  directed  to  the  very  principle  on  which 
the  monastic  institutions  of  the  Romish  Church  were  founded. 
On  tins  point  Calvin  says,  "  Proinde  meminerint  lectores,  fuisse 
me  de  monachismo  potius  quam  de  monachis  loquutum,  et  ea 
vitia  notasse,  non  quae  in  paucorum  vita  haerent,  sed  qua3  ab  ipso 
vivendi  instituto  separari  nequemit."  ^ 

2.  To  this,  however,  was  added  the  argument  from  experience. 
Monastic  institutions  had  become  the  sources  of  untold  evils  to 
t'le  Church.     Being  in  a  great  measure  independent  of  the  ordi- 

1  Summa,  ii.  ii.  qusest.  Ixxxviii.  2 ;  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  164,  b,  of  third  set. 
*  Institutio,  IV.  xiii.  15  ;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  ii.  p.  345. 


320  PART   m.     Cii.   XIX.  -  THE   LAW. 

nary  ecclesiastical  authorities,  they  were  the  cause  of  conflict  and 
agitation.  Each  order  was  an  "  imperium  in  imperio,"  and  one 
order  was  arrayed  against  another,  as  one  feudal  baron  against 
his  fellows.  Besides,  the  corruption  of  manners  within  the  con- 
vents as  portrayed  by  Romanists  themselves,  rendered  them  such 
a  scandal  and  offence  as  to  justify  their  summary  suppression. 
Much  is  implied  in  the  answer  of  Erasmus  to  Frederick  the  Wise, 
"  Lutherus  peccavit  in  duobus,  nempe  quod  tetigit  coronam  pon- 
tiiicis  et  ventres  monachorum."  ^ 

3.  Practical  evils  might  be  reformed,  but  Protestants  objected 
that  the  whole  system  of  monkery  was  founded  on  the  false  prin- 
ciple of  the  merit  of  good  works.  It  was  only  on  the  assump- 
tion that  men  could  work  out  a  righteousness  of  their  own,  that 
they  submitted  to  the  self-denial  and  restraints  of  the  monastic 
life.  If,  however,  as  Protestants  believe,  there  is  no  merit  in  the 
sight  of  God  in  anything  fallen  men  can  do,  and  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  the  sole  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  the 
whole  gromid  on  which  these  institutions  were  defended  is  under- 
mined. To  enter  a  monastery,  on  the  theory  of  the  Romish 
Church,  was  to  renounce  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace.  Be- 
sides, it  was  also  taught  that  celibacy,  obedience,  and  volmitary 
poverty,  being  uncommanded,  the  monastic  vow  to  observe  these 
rules  of  life,  involved  special  merit.  This  was  a  twofold  error. 
First,  it  is  an  error  to  suppose  that  there  can  be  an}^  work  of  su- 
pererogation. The  law  of  God  demanding  absolute  perfection  of 
heart  and  life,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  going  beyond  its  re- 
quirements. And,  secondly,  it  is  an  error  to  assume  that  there  is 
any  virtue  at  all  in  celibacy,  monastic  obedience,  or  voluntary 
poverty.  These  are  not  "  meliora  bona  "  in  the  Romish  sense  of 
the  words.     In  this  view,  also,  monastic  vows  are  antichristian. 

4.  A  fourth  reason  urged  by  Protestants  for  pronouncing  mo- 
nastic vows  invalid,  was  that  they  were  milawf ul,  not  only  for  the 
reason  just  assigned,  but  also  because  they  were  contrary  to  the 
law  of  Christ.  No  man  has  the  right  to  swear  away  his  liberty ; 
to  reduce  himself  to  a  state  of  absolute  subjection  to  a  fellow- 
mortal.  To  his  own  master  he  must  stand  or  fall.  The  vow  of 
obedience  made  by  every  monk  or  nun  was  a  \-iolation  of  the 
apostolic  injunction,  "  Be  not  ye  the  servants  of  men."  The 
same  remark  is  applicable  to  the  vow  of  celibacy.  No  one  has  a 
right  to  take  that  vow ;  because  celibacy  is  right  or  wrong  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  It  may  be  a  sin,  and  therefore  no  such 
vow  can  bind  the  conscience. 

1  Guericke's  Kirchengeschichte,  vii.  i.  ii.  §  174,  6th  edit.  Leipzig,  1846,  vol.  iii.  p.  69. 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  321 

5.  Monastic  life,  instead  of  being  subservient  to  holiness  of 
heart,  was  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  injurious  to  the  monks 
themselves.  The  fearful  language  of  Jerome  is  full  of  instruction : 
"  O  quoties  ego  ipso  in  eremo  constitutus  in  ilia  vasta  solitudine, 
quae  exusta  soils  ardoribus,  horridum  monachis  prrestat  habitacu- 

lum,  putavi  me  Romanis  interesse  deliciis Ille  igitur  ego, 

qui  ob  Gehennas  metum  tali  me  carcere  ipse  damnaveram,  scorpi- 
orum  tantum  socius  et  ferarum,  saepe  choris  intereram  puellarum. 
Pallebant  ora  jejuniis,  et  mens  desideriis  eestuabat  in  frigido  cor- 
pore,  et  ante  hominem  sua  jam  in  carne  prsemortuum,  sola  libidi- 
num  incendia  bulliebant."  ^  In  the  day  when  that  which  is  hidden 
shall  be  made  manifest,  there  will  probably  be  no  such  fearful 
revelation  of  self-torture  as  that  made  by  unveiling  the  secret  life 
of  the  inmates  of  monastic  institutions.  They  are  in  necessary 
conflict  mth  the  laws  of  nature  and  with  the  law  of  God. 

The  Protestants  adopted  the  rule  announced  by  Calvin :  ^ 
"  Omnia  non  legitima  nee  rite  concepta,  ut  apud  Deum  nihili 
sunt,  sic  nobis  irrita  esse  debere."  For,  he  immediately  adds, 
as  in  human  contracts  only  that  continues  binding,  which  he  to 
whom  the  promise  is  made  wishes  us  to  observe,  so  it  is  to  be 
supposed  that  we  are  not  bound  to  do  what  God  does  not  wish 
us  to  do,  simply  because  we  have  promised  Him  to  do  it.  On 
these  grounds  the  Reformers  with  one  accord  pronounced  all  mo- 
nastic vows  to  be  null  and  void.  Thus  the  Gospel  became  a 
proclamation  of  liberty  to  the  captive,  and  the  opening  of  the 
prison  to  those  who  were  bound. 

§  8.   The  Fourth   Commandment. 

Its  Design. 

The  design  of  the  fourth  commandment  was,  (1.)  To  com- 
memorate the  work  of  creation.  The  people  were  commanded 
to  remember  the  Sabbath-day  and  to  keep  it  holy,  because  in  six 
days  God  had  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.     (2.)  To  pre- 

1  Epistola  xxii ;  Ad  Eustocliium,  Paulce  FiUara,  De  Custodia  Virt/initatis,  Oj)era,  ed. 
Migne,  Paris,  1845,  vol.  i.  p.  398.  This  long  epistle  is  addressed  to  a  young  Roman  lady 
of  rank  and  wealth  ;  and  is  designed  to  confirm  her  in  her  resolution  not  to  marry.  It  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  that  virginity  was  not  only  a  great  virtue,  but  also  that  a  spe- 
cial reward,  a  glory  not  otherwise. attainable,  was  attached  to  it.  He  says  to  her  :  "Cave, 
luiBso,  ne  quando  de  te  dicat  Deus  :  '  Virgo  Israel  cecidit,  et  non  est  qui  suscitet  earn  ' 
(Amos  V.  2).  Audenter  loquar  :  Cum  omnia  possit  Deus,  suscitare  virginem  non  potest 
post  ruinam.  Valet  quidem  liberare  de  poena,  sed  ncn  vult  coronare  corruptam."  Ibid.  p. 
394.  He  enjoins  upon  her  all  kinds  of  ascetic  observances  even  while  confessing  th sir  in- 
efficacy  in  his  own  case. 

2  Instttutio,  IV.  xiii.  20 ;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  ii.  p.  349. 

VOL.   III.  21 


322  PART  m.   ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

serve  alive  tlie  knowledge  of  the  only  living  and  true  God.     If 
heaven  and  earth,  that  is,  the  universe,  were  created,  they  must 
have  had  a  creator ;  and  that  creator  must  be  extramundane,  ex- 
isting before,  out  of,  and  independently  of  the  world.     He  must 
be  almighty,  and  infinite  in  knowledge,  A\dsdom,  and  goodness  ;  for 
all  these  attributes  are  necessary  to  account  for  the  wonders  of 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.     So  long,  therefore,  as  men  believe  in 
creation,  they  must  believe  in  God.     This  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  so  much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  right  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath.   Far  more  importance  is  attributed  to  that  observance  than 
to  any  merely  ceremonial  institution.     (3.)   This  command  was 
designed  to  arrest  the  current  of  the  outward  Ufe  of  the  people 
and  to  turn  their  thoughts  to  the  unseen  and  spiritual.     Men  are 
so  prone  to  be  engrossed  by  the  things  of  this  world  that  it  was, 
and  is,  of  the  highest  im^Jortance  that  there  should  be  one  day 
of  frequent  recurrence  on  which  they  were  forbidden  to  think  of 
the  things  of  the  world,  and  forced  to  think  of  the  things  unseen 
and  eternal.     (4.)  It  was  intended  to  afford  time  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  people,  and  for  the  public  and  special  worship  of  God. 
(5.)  By  the  prohibition  of  all  servile  labour,  whether  of  man  or 
beast,  it  was  designed  to   secure  recuperative  rest  for  those  on 
whom  the  primeval  curse  had  fallen  :  "In  the  sweat  of  thy  face 
shalt  thou  eat  bread."     (6.)  As  a  day  of  rest  and  as  set  apart 
for  intercourse  with  God,  it  was  designed  to  be  a  type  of  that 
rest  which   remains  for   the   people  of  God,  as  we  learn  from 
Psalms  xcv.  11,  as  expounded  by  the  Apostle  in  Hebrews  iv.  1- 
10.      (7.)  As  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  had  died  out  among 
the  nations,  it  was  solemnly  reenacted  under  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion to  be  a  sign  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  children 
of  Israel.     They  were  to  be  distinguished  as  the  Sabbath-keeping 
people  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  as  such  were  to  be 
the  recipients  of  God's  special  blessings.    Exodus  xxxi.  13,  "  Ver- 
ily my  Sabbaths  ye  shall  keep  :  for  it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  you 
throughout  your  generations ;  that  ye  may  know  that  I  am  the 
Lord  that  doth  sanctify  you."     And  in  verses  16,  17,  "  Where- 
fore the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath,  to  observe  the 
Sabbath  throughout  their  generations,  for  a  perpetual  covenant. 
It  is  a  sio;n  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel  forever."    And 
in  Ezekiel  xx.  12,  it  is  said,  "  Moreover,  also,  I  gave  them  my 
Sabbaths,  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  them,  that  they  might 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord  that  sanctify  them." 


§  8.]  THE    FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  323 

The  Sabbath  was  instituted  from  the  Beginning,  and  is  of  Per- 
petual  Obligation. 
1.  This  may  be  inferred  from  the  nature  and  design  of  the  in- 
stitution. It  is  a  generally  recognized  principle,  that  those  com- 
mands of  the  Old  Testament  which  were  addressed  to  the  Jews 
as  Jews  and  were  founded  on  their  peculiar  circumstances  and 
relations,  passed  away  when  the  Mosaic  economy  was  abolished ; 
but  those  founded  on  the  immutable  nature  of  God,  or  upon  the 
permanent  relations  of  men,  are  of  permanent  obligation.  There 
are  many  such  commands  which  bind  men  as  men  ;  fathers  as 
fathers  ;  children  as  children  ;  and  neighbours  as  neighbours.  It 
is  perfectly  apparent  that  the  fourth  commandment  belongs  to  this 
latter  class.  It  is  important  for  all  men  to  know  that  God  created 
the  world,  and  therefore  is  an  extramundane  personal  being,  in- 
finite in  all  his  perfections.  All  men  need  to  be  arrested  in  their 
worldly  career,  and  called  upon  to  pause  and  to  turn  their 
thoughts  Godward.  It  is  of  incalculable  importance  that  men 
should  have  time  and  opportunity  for  religious  instruction  and 
worship.  It  is  necessary  for  all  men  and  servile  animals  to  have 
time  to  rest  and  recuperate  their  strength.  The  daily  nocturnal 
rest  is  not  sufficient  for  that  purpose,  as  physiologists  assure  us, 
and  as  experience  has  demonstrated.  Such  is  obviously  the  judg- 
ment of  God. 

It  appears,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  this  commandment  as 
moral,  and  not  positive  or  ceremonial,  that  it  is  original  and  uni- 
versal in  its  obligation.  No  man  assumes  that  the  commands, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  and  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  were  first 
announced  by  Moses,  and  ceased  to  be  obligatory  when  the  old 
economy  passed  away.  A  moral  law  is  one  that  binds  from  its 
own  nature.  It  expresses  an  obligation  arising  either  out  of  our 
relations  to  God  or  out  of  our  permanent  relations  to  our  fellow- 
men.  It  binds  whether  formally  enacted  or  not.  There  are  no 
doubt  positive  elements  in  the  fourth  commandment  as  it  stands 
in  the  Bible.  It  is  positive  that  a  seventh,  and  not  a  sixth  or 
eighth  part  of  our  time  should  be  consecrated  to  the  public  ser- 
vice of  God.  It  is  positive  that  the  seventh  rather  than  any 
other  day  of  the  week  should  be  thus  set  apart.  But  it  is  moral 
that  there  should  be  a  day  of  rest  and  cessation  from  worldly 
avocations.  It  is  of  moral  obligation  that  God  and  his  great 
works  should  be  statedly  remembered.  It  is  a  moral  duty  that 
the  people  should  assemble  for  religious  instruction  and  for  the 


o24  PART  III.     Cii.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

united  worship  of  God.  All  this  was  obligatory  before  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  would  have  been  binding  had  he  never  existed. 
All  that  the  fourth  commandment  did  was  to  put  this  natural 
and  universal  obligation  into  a  definite  form. 

2.  The  original  and  universal  obligation  of  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  may  be  inferred  from  its  having  found  a  place  in  the 
decalogue.  As  all  the  other  commandments  in  that  fundamental 
revelation  of  the  duties  of  men  to  God  and  to  their  neighbour,  are 
moral  and  permanent  in  their  obligation,  it  would  be  incongruous 
and  unnatural  if  the  fourth  should  be  a  solitary  exception.  This 
argument  is  surely  not  met  by  the  answer  given  to  it  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  opposite  doctrine.  The  argument  they  say  is  valid 
only  on  the  assumption  "  that  the  Mosaic  law,  because  of  its  di- 
vine origin,  is  of  universal  and  permanent  authority."  ^  May  it 
not  be  as  well  said.  If  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  be 
still  in  force,  the  whole  code  of  the  Mosaic  law  must  be  binding  ? 
The  fourth  commandment  is  read  in  all  Christian  chm'ches,  when- 
ever the  decalogue  is  read,  and  the  people  are  taught  to  say, 
"  Lord,  have  mercy  upon  us,  and  incline  our  hearts  to  keep  this 
law." 

3.  Another  argument  is  derived  from  the  penalty  attached  to 
the  violation  of  this  commandment.  "  Ye  shall  keep  the  Sab- 
bath, therefore,  for  it  is  holy  unto  you :  every  one  that  defileth  it 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  (Ex.  xxxi.  14.)  The  violation 
of  no  merely  ceremonial  or  positive  law  was  visited  with  this 
penalty.  Even  the  neglect  of  circumcision,  although  it  involved 
the  rejection  of  both  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Mosaic  covenant,  and 
necessarily  worked  the  forfeiture  of  all  the  benefits  of  the  theoc- 
racy, was  not  made  a  capital  offence.  The  law  of  the  Sabbath 
by  being  thus  distinguished  was  raised  far  above  the  level  of 
mere  positive  enactments.  A  character  was  given  to  it,  not  only 
of  primary  importance,  but  also  of  special  sanctity. 

4.  We  accordingly  find  that  in  the  prophets  as  well  as  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Sabbath  is  not  onl}^  spoken  of  as  "  a  delight,"  but  also  its  faith- 
ful observance  is  predicted  as  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
Messianic  period.  Thus  Isaiah  says,  "  If  thou  turn  away  thy 
foot  from  the  Sabbath,  from  doing  thy  pleasure  on  my  holy  day ; 
and  call  the  Sabbath  a  Delight,  the  Holy  of  the  Lord,  Hon- 
ourable ;  and  shalt  honour  him,  not  doing  thine  own  ways,  nor 
finding  thine  own  pleasure,  nor  speaking  thine  own  words  *  ihen 

1  Palmer,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyhlopddie,  art.  "  Sonntagsfeier." 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  325 

shalt  thou  delight  thj^self  in  the  Loed  ;  and  I  ^vill  cause  thee  to 
ride  upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth,  and  feed  thee  with  the 
heritage  of  Jacob  thy  father  ;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  it."  (Is.  Iviii.  13,  14.)  Gesenius  is  very  much  puzzled  at 
this.  The  prophets  predicted  that  under  the  Messiah  the  true 
religion  was  to  be  extended  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  But  the 
public  worship  of  God  was  by  the  Jewish  law  tied  to  Jerusalem. 
That  law  was  neither  designed  nor  adapted  for  a  universal 
religion.  To  those,  therefore,  who  believe  that  the  Sabbath  was 
a  temporary  Mosaic  institution  to  pass  away  when  the  old  econ- 
omy was  abolished,  it  is  altogether  incongruous  that  a  prophet 
should  represent  the  faithful  observance  of  the  Sabbath  as  one 
of  the  chief  blessings  and  glories  of  the  Messiah's  reign. 

These  considerations,  apart  from  historical  evidence  or  the  di- 
rect assertion  of  the  Scriptures,  are  enough  to  create  a  strong,  if 
not  an  invincible  presumption,  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted 
from  the  beginning,  and  was  designed  to  be  of  universal  and  per- 
manent obligation.  Whatever  law  had  a  temporary  ground  or 
reason  for  its  enactment,  was  temporary  in  its  obligation.  Where 
the  reason  of  the  law  is  permanent  the  law  itself  is  permanent. 

The  greater  number  of  Christian  theologians  who  deny  all  this, 
still  admit  the  Sabbath  to  be  a  most  wise  and  beneficent  institu- 
tion. Nay,  many  of  them  go  so  far  as  to  represent  its  violation, 
as  a  day  of  religious  rest,  as  a  sin.  This,  however,  is  a  conces- 
sion that  the  reason  for  the  command  is  permanent,  and  that  if 
God  has  not  required  its  observance,  the  Church  or  State  is  bound 
to  do  so. 

Direct  Evidence  of  the  ante-Mosaic  institution  of  the  Sahhath. 

Presumptive  evidence  may  be  strong  enough  to  coerce  assent.' 
The  advocates  of  the  early  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  however, 
are  not  limited  to  that  kind  of  evidence.  There  is  direct  proof 
of  the  fact  for  which  they  contend,  — 

1.  In  Genesis  ii.  3,  it  is  said,  "  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and 
sanctified  it ;  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work 
which  God  created  and  made."  It  is  indeed  easy  to  say  that  this 
is  a  prolepsis  ;  that  the  passage  assigns  the  reason  why  in  the 
times  of  Moses,  God  selected  the  seventh,  rather  than  any  other 
day  of  the  week  to  be  the  Sabbath.  This  is  indeed  possible,  but 
it  is  not  probable.  It  is  an  unnatural  interpretation  which  no 
one  would  adopt  except  to  siiit  a  purpose.  The  narrative  pur- 
ports to  be  an  account  of  what  God  did  at  the  time  of  the  crea- 


326  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. —  THE   LAW. 

tion.  When  the  earth  was  prepared  for  his  reception,  God  cre- 
ated man  on  the  sixth  day,  and  rested  from  the  work  of  creation 
on  tlie  seventh,  and  set  apart  that  day  as  a  holy  day  to  be  a  per- 
petual memorial  of  the  great  work  which  He  had  accomplished.^ 
This  is  the  natural  sense  of  the  passage,  from  which  only  the 
strongest  reasons  would  authorize  us  to  depart.  All  collateral 
reasons,  however,  are  on  its  side. 

In  support  of  this  interpretation  the  authority  of  the  most 
impartial,  as  well  as  the  most  competent  interpreters  might  be 
quoted.  Grotius  did  not  believe  in  the  perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath, 
yet  he  admits  that  in  Genesis  ii.  3,  it  is  said  that  the  seventh  day 
was  set  apart  as  holy  from  the  creation.  He  assumes,  on  the  au- 
thority, as  he  says,  of  many  learned  Hebrews,  that  there  were 
two  precepts  concerning  the  Sabbath.  The  one  given  at  the 
beginning  enjoined  that  every  seventh  day  should  be  remembered 
as  a  memorial  of  the  creation.  And  in  this  sense,  he  says,  the 
Sabbath  was  doubtless  observed  by  the  patriarchs,  Enoch,  Noah, 
Abraham,  etc.  The  second  precept  was  given  from  Mount  Sinai 
when  the  Sabbath  was  made  a  memorial  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
Israelites  from  Egyptian  bondage.  This  latter  law  enjoined  rest 
from  labour  on  the  Sabbath.  The  Scriptural  argument  which  he 
urges  in  support  of  this  theory,  is,  that  in  all  the  accounts  of  the 
journeyings  of  the  patriarchs,  we  never  read  of  their  resting  on 
the  seventh  day  ;  whereas  after  the  law  given  from  Mount  Sinai, 
this  reference  to  the  resting  of  the  people  on  the  Sabbath  is  of 
constant  occurrence. ^ 

Delitzsch  says  "  Hengstenberg  understands  Genesis  ii.  3,  as 
though  it  were  written  from  the  stand-point  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
if  it  were  said,  God  for  this  reason  in  after  times  blessed  the  seventh 
day  ;  which  scarcely  needs  a  refutation.  God  himself,  the  Creator, 
celebrated  a  Sabbath  immediately  after  the  six  days'  work,  and 
because  his  o-a/3/3ario-ju,o?  could  become  the  o-a^,/?artcr/xos  of  his  creat- 
ures, He  made  for  that  purpose  the  seventh  day,  by  his  blessing, 
to  be  a  perennial  fountain  of  refreshment,  and  clothed  that  day 
by  hallowing  it  with  special  glory  for  all  time  to  come."  ^ 

Baumgarten  in   his  comment    on  this  verse  says    the  separa- 

1  The  force  of  this  argument  does  not  depend  on  the  supposition  that  the  days  of  creation 
were  periods  of  twenty-four  hours.  Admitting  that  they  were  geologic  periods,  at  the  end 
of  the  sixth  of  which  man  appeared,  and  that  then  followed  a  period  of  permanent  rest, 
that  would  be  reason  enough  why  every  seventh  day  should  be  selected  as  a  memorial  of 
the  creation,  to  teach  Adam  and  his  descendants  that  the  earth  did  not  owe  its  existence  to 
a  blind  process  of  development,  but  to  the  fiat  of  .Jehovah. 

2  De  Vi'iitate  Rdujionis  Christinnce,  v.  10;  Warier,  London,  1G79,  vol.  iii.  p.  79. 
8  Die  Ge7iesis  AuMjehcjt,  von  Franz  Delitzsch,  Leipzig,  1852,  pp.  84,  85. 


§  8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  327 

tion  of  this  day  from  all  others  was  made  so  that  "  the  return  of 
this  blessed  and  holy  day  should  be  to  him  a  memorial,  and  par- 
ticipation of  the  divine  rest."^  And  Knobel,  one  of  the  most  pro- 
nounced of  the  rationalistic  commentators,  says,  "  That  the  author 
of  Genesis  makes  the  distinction  of  the  seventh  day  coeval  with 
the  creation,  although  the  carrying  out  of  the  purpose  thus  inti- 
mated was  deferred  to  the  time  of  Moses.  Nothing  is  known 
of  any  ante-Mosaic  celebration  of  the  Sabbath."  ^ 

2.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  the  reason  for  the  Sabbath  existed 
from  the  beginning,  there  is  direct  historical  evidence  that  the 
hebdomadal  division  of  time  prevailed  before  the  deluge.  Noah 
in  Genesis  viii.  10,  12,  is  said  twice  to  have  rested  seven  days. 
And  again  in  the  time  of  Jacob,  as  appears  from  Genesis  xxix.  27, 
28,  the  division  of  time  into  weeks  was  recognized  as  an  estab- 
lished usage.  As  seven  is  not  an  equal  jjart  either  of  a  solar  year 
or  of  a  lunar  month,  the  only  satisfactory  account  of  this  fact, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath.  This  fact  more- 
over proves  not  only  the  original  institution,  but  also  the  con- 
tinued observance  of  the  seventh  day.  There  must  have  been 
something  to  distinguish  that  day  as  the  close  of  one  period  or 
the  commencement  of  another.  It  is  altogether  unnatural  to  ac- 
count for  this  hebdomachil  division  by  a  reference  to  the  wor- 
ship of  the  seven  planets.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  planets 
were  objects  of  worship  at  that  early  period  of  the  world,  or  for 
a  long  time  afterwards,  especially  among  the  Shemitic  races. 
Besides,  this  explanation  is  inconsistent  with  the  account  of  the 
creation.  The  divine  authority  of  the  book  of  Genesis  is  here 
taken  for  granted.  What  it  asserts.  Christians  are  bound  to 
believe.  It  is  undeniably  taught  in  this  book  that  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  six  days  and  rested  on  the  seventh. 
It  matters  not  how  the  word  "  days  "  may  be  explained,  we  have 
in  the  history  of  the  creation  this  hebdomadal  division  of  time. 
No  earlier  cause  for  the  prevalence  of  that  division  can  be.  given, 
and  no  other  is  needed,  or  can  reasonably  be  assumed. 

This  division  of  time  into  weeks,  was  not  confined  to  the  He- 
brew race.  It  was  almost  universal.  This  fact  proves  that  it 
must  have  had  its  origin  in  the  very  earliest  period  in  the  liistory 
of  the  world. ^ 

1  Theoloffische  Commentar  zuin  Pentatetich,  Kiel,  1843,  vol.  i.  p.  29. 

2  Die  Genesis  ErMart,  von  August  Knobel,  Leipzig,  1852. 

8  Of  this  general  prevalence  in  the  ancient  world,  of  a  special  reverence  for  the  seventh 
day  and  of  the  division  of  time  into  weeks,  Grotius  gives  abundant  evidence  in  his  work, 
De  Veritate  Religionis  Christianm,  1. 16;  Wo7-ks,  vol.  iii.  p.  16.  On  this  subject,  see  Winer's 


328  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

3.  That  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  was  not  first  given  on  Mount 
Sinai,  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  it  was  referred  to 
as  a  known  and  familiar  institution,  before  that  law  was  promul- 
gated. Thus  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus  the  people  were 
directed  to  gather  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week  manna  sufficient 
for  the  seventh,  as  on  that  day  none  would  be  provided.  And 
more  particularly  in  the  twenty-third  verse,  it  is  said,  "  To-mor- 
row is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the  LoRD  :  bake  that 
which  ye  will  bake  to-day,  and  seethe  that  ye  will  seethe  ;  and 
that  which  remaineth  over  lay  up  for  you,  to  be  kept  until  morn- 
ing." And  in  the  twenty-sixth  verse  we  read,  "  Six  days  ye 
shall  gather  it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in 
it  there  shall  be  none."  There  was  therefore  a  Sabbath  before 
the  INIosaic  law  was  given.  Again,  the  language  used  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy," 
naturally  implies  that  the  Sabbath  was  not  a  new  institution.  It 
was  a  law  given  in  the  beginning,  that  had  doubtless  in  a  good 
measure,  especially  during  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  become  obso- 
lete, which  the  people  were  henceforth  to  remember  and  faith- 
fully observe. 

The  objection  to  the  pre-Mosaic  institution  of  the  Sabbath 
founded  on  the  silence  of  Genesis  on  the  subject  in  the  history  of 
the  patriarchs,  is  of  little  weight.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  book  of  Genesis,  comprised  in  some  sixty  octavo  pages,  gives 
us  the  history  of  nearly  two  thousand  years.  All  details  not 
bearing  immediately  on  the  design  of  the  author  were  of  necessity 
left  out.  If  nothing  was  done  but  what  is  there  recorded,  the 
antediluvians  and  patriarchs  lived  almost  entirely  without  re- 
lio-ious  observances. 

The  Sabbath  does  not  stand  alone.  It  is  well  known  that 
Moses  adopted  and  incorporated  with  his  extended  code  many  of 
the  ancient  usages  of  the  chosen  people.  This  was  the  case  with 
sacrifices  and  circumcision,  as  well  as  with  all  the  principles  of 
the  decalogue.  That  a  particular  law,  therefore,  is  found  in  the 
Mosaic  economy  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  it  had  its  origin 
with  the  Hebrew  Lawgiver,  or  that  it  ceased  to  be  binding  when 
the  old  dispensation  was  abrogated.  If  the  reason  for  the  law 
remains,  the  law  itself  remains  ;  and  if  given  to  mankind  before 
the  birth  of  Moses,  it  binds  mankind.     On  this  point  even  Dr. 

Realwdrterhuch,  word  "  Sabbath."  Winer  refers,  among  other  authorities  discussinn:  this 
question  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Sabbath,  to  Selden,  Jus  Nat.  et  Gent.;  Spencer,  Lef);/.  ritual, 
Eichhorn,  Uryesch.;  Hebenstreit,  De  Sabb.  ante  k<j(/.  J/os.  existente  ;  Michaelis,  ^fos.  Recht 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  329 

Paley  says :  "If  the  divine  command  was  actually  delivered  at 
the  creation,  it  was  addressed,  no  doubt,  to  the  whole  human 
species  alike,  and  continues,  unless  repealed  by  some  subsequent 
revelation,  binding  upon  all  who  come  to  the  knowledge  of  it."  ^ 
That  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  was  thus  given  is,  as  has  been 
shoAvn,  the  common  opinion  even  of  those  who  deny  its  perpetual 
obligation,  and  therefore  its  permanence  cannot  reasonably  be 
questioned  by  those  who  admit  the  principle  that  what  was  given 
to  mankind  was  meant  for  mankind. 

4.  It  is  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  this  conclusion,  that  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath  was  taken  up  and  incorporated  in  the  new 
dispensation  by  the  Apostles,  the  infallible  founders  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  All  the  Mosaic  laws  founded  on  the  permanent 
relations  of  men  either  to  God  or  to  their  fellows,  are  in  like 
manner  adopted  in  the  Christian  Code.  They  are  adopted,  how- 
ever, only  as  to  their  essential  elements.  Every  law,  ceremonial 
or  typical,  or  designed  only  for  the  Jews,  is  discarded.  Men  are 
still  bound  to  worship  God,  but  this  is  not  now  to  be  done  espe- 
cially at  Jerusalem,  or  by  sacrifices,  or  through  the  ministration 
of  priests.  Marriage  is  as  sacred  now  as  it  ever  was,  but  all  the 
special  laws  regulating  its  duties,  and  the  penalty  for  its  violation, 
are  abrogated.  Homicide  is  as  great  a  crime  now  as  under  the 
Mosaic  economy,  but  the  old  laws  about  the  avenger  of  blood  and 
cities  of  refuge  are  no  longer  in  force.  The  rights  of  property 
remain  unimpaired  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  but  the  Jewish 
laws  regarding  its  distribution  and  protection,  are  no  longer  bind- 
ing. The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  Sabbath.  We  are  as 
much  bovnid  to  keep  one  day  in  seven  holy  unto  the  Lord,  as  were 
the  patriarchs  or  Israelites.  This  law. binds  all  men  as  men,  be- 
cause given  to  all  mankind,  and  because  it  is  founded  upon  the 
nature  common  to  all  men,  and  the  relation  which  all  men  bear 
to  God.  The  two  essential  elements  of  the  command  are  that  the 
Sabbath  should  be  a  day  of  rest,  that  is,  of  cessation  from  worldly 
avocations  and  amusements ;  and  that  it  should  be  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  God  and  the  services  of  religion.  All  else  is  circum- 
stantial and  variable.  It  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  ob- 
served with  special  reference  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites 
out  of  Egypt ;  nor  are  the  details  as  to  the  things  to  be  done  or 
avoided,  or  as  to  the  penalty  for  transgression  obligatory  on  us. 
We  are  not  bound  to  offer  the  sacrifices  required  of  the  Jews,  nor 
are  we  bound  to  abstain  from  lighting  a  fire  on  that  day.     In 

1  Princ'qyles  of  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  v.  7;  edit.  Boston,  1843,  vol.  ii.  p.  48. 


330  PART  in.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

like  manner  the  day  of  the  week  is  not  essential.  The  change 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first  was  circumstantial.  If  made  for 
sufiicient  reason  and  by  competent  authority,  the  change  is  oblig- 
atory. The  reason  for  the  change  is  patent.  If  the  deliverance 
of  the  Hebrew  from  the  bondage  in  Egypt  should  be  commemo- 
rated, how  much  more  the  redemption  of  the  world  by  the  Son 
of  God.  If  the  creation  of  the  material  universe  should  be  kept 
in  perpetual  remembrance,  how  much  more  the  new  creation  se- 
cured by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.  If  men 
wish  the  knowledge  of  that  event  to  die  out,  let  them  neglect  to 
keep  holy  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  if  they  desire  that  event  to 
be  everywhere  known  and  remembered,  let  them  consecrate  that 
day  to  the  worship  of  the  risen  Saviour.  This  is  God's  method 
for  keeping  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  on  which  our  salvation 
depends,  in  perpetual  remembrance. 

This  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week  was  made  not  only  for  a  sufficient  reason,  but  also  by 
competent  authority.  It  is  a  simple  historical  fact  that  the 
Christians  of  the  apostolic  age  ceased  to  observe  the  seventh,  and 
did  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  day  for  religious  wor- 
ship. Thus  from  the  creation,  in  unbroken  succession,  the  people 
of  God  have,  in  obedience  to  the  original  command,  devoted  one 
day  in  seven  to  the  worship  of  the  only  living  and  true  God.  It . 
is  hard  to  conceive  of  a  stronger  argument  than  this  for  the  per- 
petual obligation  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  divine  institution.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  stop  to  answer  the  objection,  that  the  record  of 
this  uninterrupted  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  incomplete. 
History  does  not  record  everything.  We  find  the  fountain  of 
this  river  of  mercy  in  paradise  ;  we  trace  its  course  from  age  to 
age  ;  we  see  its  broad  and  beneficent  flow  before  our  eyes.  If 
here  and  there,  in  its  course  through  millenniums,  it  be  lost  from 
view  in  a  morass  or  cavern,  its  reappearance  proves  its  identity 
and  the  divinity  of  its  origin.  The  Sabbath  is  to  the  nations 
what  the  Nile  is  to  Egypt,  and  you  might  as  well  call  the  one  a 
human  device  as  the  other.  Nothing  but  divine  authority  and 
divine  power  can  account  for  the  continued  observance  of  this 
sacred  institution  from  the  beginning  until  now. 

5.  It  is  fair  to  argue  the  divine  origin  of  the  Sabbath  from  its 
supreme  importance.  As  to  the  fact  of  its  importance  all  Chris- 
tians are  agreed.  They  may  differ  as  to  the  ground  on  which 
the  obligation  to  observe  it  rests,  and  as  to  the  strictness  with 
which  the  day  should  be  observed,  but  that  men  are  bound  to 


§8.J  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  331 

observe  it,  and  that  its  due  observance  is  of  essential  importance, 
there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  the  churches  of  Christen- 
dom. But  if  so  essential  to  the  interests  of  religion,  is  it  con- 
ceivable that  God  has  not  enjoined  it  ?  He  has  given  the  world 
the  Church,  the  Bible,  the  ministry,  the  sacraments ;  these  are 
not  human  devices.  And  can  it  be  supposed  that  the  Sabbath, 
without  which  all  these  divine  institutions  Avould  be  measurably 
inefficient,  should  be  left  to  the  will  or  wisdom  of  men  ?  This 
is  not  to  be  supposed.  That  these  divinely  appointed  means  for 
the  illumination  and  sanctification  of  men,  are  in  a  great  measure 
without  effect,  where  the  Sabbath  is  neglected  or  profaned,  is  a 
matter  of  experience.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  mass  of  the 
people  are  indebted  to  the  services  of  the  sanctuary  on  the  Lord's 
Day,  for  their  religious  knowledge.  Any  community  or  class  of 
men  who  ignore  the  Sabbath  and  absent  themselves  from  the 
sanctuary,  as  a  general  thing,  become  heathen.  They  have  little 
more  true  religious  knowledge  than  pagans.  But  without  such 
knowledge  morality  is  impossible.  Religion  is  not  only  the  life- 
blood  of  morality,  so  that  without  the  former  the  latter  cannot 
be  ;  but  God  has  revealed  his  purpose  that  it  shall  not  be.  If 
men  refuse  to  retain  Him  in  their  knowledge,  He  declares  that 
He  will  give  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind.  (Rom.  i.  28.)  Men 
do  not  know  what  they  are  doing,  when  by  their  teaching  or 
example  they  encourage  the  neglect  or  profanation  of  the  Lord's 
Day.  We  have  in  the  French  Communists  an  illustration  and  a 
warning  of  what  a  communit}^  without  a  Sabbath,  ^.  e.,  without 
religion,  must  ultimately  and  inevitably  become.  Irreligious  men 
of  course  sneer  at  religion  and  deny  its  importance,  but  the  Bible 
and  experience  are  against  them. 

Ohjections. 

The  general  objections  against  the  doctrine  that  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  is  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation,  have  already 
been  incidentally  considered.  Those  derived  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  principally  the  following :  — 

1.  An  objection  is  drawn  from  the  absence  of  any  express  com- 
mand. No  such  command  was  needed.  The  New  Testament 
has  no  decalogue.  That  code  having  been  once  announced,  and 
never  repealed,  remains  in  force.  Its  injunctions  are  not  so  much 
categorically  repeated,  as  assumed  as  still  obligatory.  We  find 
no  such  words  as,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  or 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image."     Paul  says. 


332  PART   III.     Ci£.    XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

"  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not 
covet."  (Rom.  vii.  7.)  The  law  which  said  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  is  in  the  decalogue.  Paul  does  not  reenact  the  command, 
he  simply  takes  for  granted  that  the  decalogue  is  now  as  ever  the 
law  of  God. 

2.  It  is  urged  not  only  that  there  is  no  positive  command  on 
the  subject,  but  also  that  there  is  a  total  silence  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament respecting  any  obligation  to  keep  holy  one  day  in  seven. 
Our  Lord  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  it  is  said,  while  correcting 
the  false  interpretations  of  the  Mosaic  law  given  by  the  Pharisees, 
and  expounding  its  precepts  in  their  true  sense,  says  nothing  of 
the  fourth  commandment.  The  same  is  true  of  the  council  in  Je- 
rusalem. That  council  says  nothing  about  the  necessity  of  the 
heathen  converts  observing  a  Sabbath.  But  all  this  may  be  said 
of  other  precepts  the  obligation  of  which  no  man  questions. 
Neither  our  Lord  nor  the  council  say  anything  about  the  wor- 
shipping of  graven  images.  Besides,  our  Lord  elsewhere  does 
do,  with  regard  to  the  fourth  commandment,  precisely  Avhat  He 
did  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  regard  to  other  precepts  of 
the  decalogue.  He  reproved  the  Pharisees  for  their  false  inter- 
pretation of  that  commandment,  without  the  slightest  intimation 
that  the  law  itself  was  not  to  remain  in  force. 

3.  Appeal  is  made  to  such  passages  as  Colossians  ii.  16,  "  Let 
no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of 
an  holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days ;  "  and 
Romans  xiv.  5,  "  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another ; 
another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind."  Every  one  knows,  however,  that  the 
apostolic  churches  were  greatly  troubled  by  Judaizers,  who  in- 
sisted that  the  Mosaic  law  continued  in  force,  and  that  Christians 
were  bound  to  conform  to  its  prescriptions  with  regard  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and  its  numerous  feast 
days,  on  which  all  labour  was  to  be  intermitted.  These  were  the 
false  teachers  and  this  was  the  false  doctrine  against  which  so 
much  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  was  directed.  It  is  in  obvious  refer- 
ence to  these  men  and  their  doctrines  that  such  passages  as  tlipse 
cited  above  were  written.  They  have  no  reference  to  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  which  had  been  observed  from  the  creation,  and  which 
the  Apostles  themselves  introduced  and  perpetuated  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

4.  It  also  frequently  said  that  a  weekly  Sabbath  is  out  of  keep- 
ing with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  which  requires  the  consecration 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  333 

of  the  wliole  life  and  of  all  our  time  to  God.  With  the  Christian, 
it  is  said,  every  day  is  holy,  and  one  day  is  not  more  holy  than 
another.  It  is  not  true,  however,  that  the  New  Testament  re- 
quires greater  consecration  to  God  than  the  Old.  The  Gospel 
has  many  advantages  over  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  but  that  is 
not  one  of  them.  It  was  of  old,  even  from  the  beginning,  re- 
quired of  all  men  that  they  should  love  God  with  all  the  heart, 
with  all  the  mind,  and  with  all  the  strength  ;  and  their  neighbour 
as  themselves.  More  than  this  the  Gospel  demands  of  no  man. 
If  it  consists  with  the  spirituality  of  the  Church  that  behevers 
should  not  neglect  the  assembling  themselves  together  ;  and  that 
they  should  have  a  stated  ministry,  sacramental  rites,  and  the 
power  of  excommunication,  and  all  this  by  Divine  appointment ; 
then  it  is  hard  to  see  why  the  consecration  of  one  day  in  seven  to 
the  service  of  God,  should  be  inconsistent  with  its  spiritual  char- 
acter. So  long  as  we  are  in  the  body,  religion  cannot  be  exclu- 
sively a  matter  of  the  heart.  It  must  have  its  institutions  and  or- 
dinances ;  and  any  attempt  to  dispense  with  these  would  be  as 
unreasonable  and  as  futile  as  for  the  soul,  in  this  our  present  state 
of  existence,  to  attempt  to  do  without  the  body. 

5.  Another  ground  is  often  taken  on  this  subject.  The  impor- 
tance of  the  Sabbath  is  not  denied.  The  obligation  to  keep  it 
holy  is  admitted.  It  is  declared  to  be  sinful  to  engage  in  worldly 
avocations  or  amusements  on  that  day ;  but  it  is  denied  that  this 
obligation  to  consecrate  the  day  to  God  rests  upon  any  divine 
command.  It  is  denied  that  the  original  sanctification  of  the 
seventh  day  at  the  creation  binds  all  men  to  keep  one  day  in 
seven  holy  to  the  Lord.  It  is  maintained  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, both  as  to  its  essence  and  as  to  its  accidents  is  abro- 
gated; and,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  express  command  of  God 
now  in  force  requiring  us  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath.  The  obliga- 
tion is  either  self-imposed,  or  it  is  imposed  by  the  Church.  The 
Church  requires  its  members  to  observe  the  Lord's  Day,  as  it  re- 
quires them  to  observe  Christmas  or  Good  Friday  ;  and  Chris- 
tians, it  is  said,  are  bound  to  obey  the  Church,  as  citizens  are 
bound  to  obey  the  state.  But  Protestants  deny  that  the  Church 
has  power  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience.  That  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  God.  If  the  Church,  may  do  it  in  one  case  it  may 
in  another  ;  and  we  should  be  made  the  servants  of  men.  It  is  by 
•this  simple  principle,  that  men  are  bound  to  obey  the  Church,  that 
Rome  has  effectually  despoiled  all  who  acknowledge  her  author- 
ity of  the  liberty  where\^^th  Christ  has  made  his  people  free. 


334  PART  m.     Ch.   XIX.— the   LAW. 

Most  of  the  modern  evangelical  theologians  in  Germany  say 
that  the  obligation  to  observe  the  Sabbath  is  self-imposed.  That 
is,  that  every  man,  and  especially  every  Christian,  is  bomid  to 
do  all  he  can  to  promote  the  interests  of  religion  and  the  good  of 
society.  The  consecration  of  the  Lord's  Day  to  the  worship  of 
God  is  eminently  conducive  to  these  ends ;  therefore  men  are 
bound  to  keep  it  holy.  But  an  obligation  self-imposed  is  hmited 
to  self.  One  man  thinks  it  best  to  devote  Sunday  to  religion ; 
another  that  it  should  be  kept  as  a  day  of  relaxation  and  amuse- 
ment. One  man's  liberty  cannot  be  judged  by  another  man's 
conscience.  Expediency  can  never  be  the  ground  of  a  universal 
and  permanent  obligation.  The  history  of  the  Church  proves 
that  no  such  views  of  duty  are  adequate  to  coerce  the  conscience 
and  govern  the  lives  of  men.  The  Sabbath  is  not  in  fact  con- 
secrated to  religion,  where  its  divine  authority  is  denied.  The 
churches  may  be  more  or  less  frequented,  but  the  day  is  princi- 
pally devoted  to  amusement.  A  German  theologian^  says  that 
the  doctrine  that  the  rehgious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  rests 
on  an  express  divine  command,  "  prevails  throughout  the  whole 
English-speaking  part  of  Christendom,"  and  that  in  the  Evan- 
gelical Church  in  Germany,  some  either  from  a  too  legal  view  of 
Christianity,  or  from  sei-vile  subjection  to  the  letter  of  the  Bible, 
or  impressed  by  the  solemn  stillness  of  an  English  Sunday  as 
contrasted  with  its  profanation  elsewhere,  have  ever  been  inclined 
to  the  same  views.  Although  this  writer,  the  representative  of 
a  large  class,  asserts  his  Christian  liberty  to  observe  one  day 
above  another,  or  all  days  alike,  he  admits  that  the  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  Day  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  ;  on 
the  contrary,  he  says  that  "  its  profanation  (Verleztung)  is  a  sin." 
To  make  a  thing  sinful,  however,  he  says  it  is  not  necessary  that 
it  should  be  against  an  express  divine  command.  A  Christian's 
conscience,  "  guided  by  the  word,  and  enlightened  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,"  is  his  rule  of  conduct.  Conscience  thus  guided  and 
enlightened,  may  enjoin  or  forbid  much  for  which  no  explicit 
directions  can  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  No  man  denies  all 
this  ;  but  a  man's  conscience  is  a  guide  for  himseK,  and  not  for 
other  people.  If  we  hold  fast  the  fundamental  principle  of  our 
Protestant  faith  and  freedom,  "  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  omy 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  we  must  be  able  to  plead 
express  divine  authority  for  the  religious  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Day,  or  allow  every  man  so  to  keep  it  or  not  as  he  sees  fit.     To 

1  Palmer  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie. 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  335 

his  own  master  he  stands  or  falls ;  to  Him  alone  is  he  accountable 
for  the  use  which  he  makes  of  his  Christian  liberty.  But  as  no 
man  is  at  liberty  to  steal  or  not  to  steal  as  he  sees  fit,  so  all 
"  English  speaking  "  Christians  with  one  voice  say,  he  is  not  at 
liberty  to  sanctify  or  profane  the  Sabbath,  as  he  sees  fit.  He  is 
bound  by  the  primal  and  immutable  law  given  at  the  creation, 
to  keep  one  day  in  seven  holy  to  the  Lord. 

If  it  be  true  that  it  is  peculiar  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to 
hold  this  view  of  the  obligation  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  then 
they  have  special  reason  for  profound  gratitude  to  God.  God 
of  old  said  to  the  Israelites,  "  Hallow  my  Sabbaths ;  and  they 
shall  be  a  sign  between  me  and  you,,  that  ye  may  know  that  I  am 
the  Lord  your  God."  That  is,  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  that  you 
are  my  people.  So  long  as  you  keep  the  Sabbath  holy  I  \nll 
bless  you  ;  when  you  neglect  and  profane  it,  your  blessings  shall 
depart  from  you.  (Jer.  xvii.  20-27.)  If  it  be  then  the  dis- 
tinction of  Anglo-Saxon  Christians,  that  they  are  a  sabbath- 
keeping  people,  it  is  one  to  be  highly  prized  and  sedulously 
guarded ;  and  in  this  country  especially,  we  should  be  watchful 
lest  the  influx  of  immigrants  of  other  nationalities  deprive  us  of 
this  great  distinction  and  its  blessings. 

It  is  a  popular  objection  against  the  religious  observance  of 
the  Lord's  Day,  that  the  labouring  classes  need  it  as  a  day  of 
recreation.  On  this  it  is  obvious  to  remark,  (1.)  That  there  are 
many  grievous  evils  in  our  modern  civilization,  but  these  are  not 
to  be  healed  by  trampling  on  the  laws  of  God.  If  men  crowd 
labourers  into  narrow  premises,  and  overwork  them  in  heated 
factories  six  days  in  the  week,  they  cannot  atone  for  that  sin 
by  making  the  Lord's  Day  a  day  for  amusement.  (2.)  So  far 
from  Sunday,  as  generally  spent  by  the  labouring  class,  being 
a  day  of  refreshment,  it  is  just  the  reverse.  Monday  is  com- 
monly with  them  the  worst  day  in  the  week  for  labour  ;  it  is 
needed  as  a  day  for  recovery  from  the  effects  of  a  misspent  Sun- 
day. (3.)  If  the  labouring  classes  are  provided  with  healthful 
places  of  abode  and  are  not  overworked,  then  the  best  restora- 
tive is  entire  rest  from  ordinary  occupations,  and  directing  their 
thoughts  and  feelmgs  into  new  channels,  by  the  purifying  and 
elevating  offices  of  religion.  This  is  the  divinely  appointed 
method  of  preserving  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  in  a  healthful 
state,  a  method  which  no  human  device  is  likely  to  improve. 


336  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.— the  law. 

Sow  is  the  Sabbath  to  be  Sanctified  ? 
It  may  be  said  in  general  terms  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  whole 
Jewish  and  Clu'istian  Church,  that  the  sanctification  required  by 
God,  consists  not  merely  in  cessation  from  worldly  avocations, 
but  also  in  the  consecration  of  the  day  to  the  offices  of  religion. 
That  this  is  the  correct  view  is  proved,  (1.)  Not  only  by  the  gen- 
eral consent  of  the  people  of  God  under  both  dispensations,  but 
also  by  the  constant  use  of  the  words  to  "  hallow,"  to  "  make  " 
or,  "  keep  holy,"  and  to  "  sanctify."  The  uniform  use  of  such 
expressions,  shows  that  the  day  was  set  apart  from  a  common  to 
a  sacred  use.  (2.)  From  the  command  to  increase  the  number  of 
sacrifices  in  the  temple  service,  which  proves  that  the  day  was 
to  be  religiously  observed.  (3.)  From  the  design  of  the  insti- 
tution, which  from  the  beginning  was  religious  ;  the  commemora- 
tion of  the  work  of  creation,  and  after  the  advent,  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  (4.)  In  Leviticus  xxiii.,  a  list  is  given  of  those 
days  on  which  there  was  to  be  "a  holy  convocation  "  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  i.  e.,  on  which  the  people  were  to  be  called  together  for 
public  worship,  and  the  Sabbath  is  the  first  given.  (5.)  The 
command  is  constantly  repeated  that  the  people  should  be  faith- 
fully instructed  out  of  the  law,  which  was  to  be  read  to  them  on 
all  suitable  occasions.  To  give  opportunity  for  such  instruction 
was  evidently  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  these  "  holy  convo- 
cations." (Deiit.  vi.  6,  7,  17-19  ;  Josh.  i.  8.)  This  instruction 
of  the  people  was  made  the  special  duty  of  the  Levites  (Dent, 
xxxiii.  10)  ;  and  of  the  priests.  (Lev.  x.  11,  comp.  Mai.  ii.  7.) 
The  reading  of  the  law  was  doubtless  a  regular  part  of  the 
service  on  all  the  days  on  which  the  people  were  solemnly  called 
together  for  religious  worship.  Thus  in  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  11, 
12,  we  read,  "  When  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the 
Lord  thy  God  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt 
read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing.  Gather  the 
people  together,  men,  and  women,  and  children,  and  thy  stranger 
that  is  within  thy  gates,  that  they  may  hear,  and  that  they  may 
learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  your  God,  and  observe  to  do  all  the 
words  of  this  law."  Such  was  the  design  of  the  convocation  of 
the  people.  We  know  from  the  New  Testament  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  read  every  Sabbath  in  the  synagogues  ;  and  the  syn- 
agogues were  among  the  earliest  institutions  of  the  chosen  peo- 
ple. 2  Kings  iv.  23,  at  least  proves  that  at  that  period  it  was 
customary  for  the  people  to  resort  on  the  Sabbath  to  holy  men 


iJ8]  THE    FOURTH   COALMANDMENT.  ool 

for  instruction.  In  Psalm  Ixxiv.  8,  it  is  said  of  the  heathen, 
"  They  have  burned  up  all  the  synagogues  of  God  in  the  land." 
The  word  here  rendered  "  synagogues,"  means  "  assemblies," 
but  burning  up  "  assemblies  "  can  only  mean  places  of  assembly ; 
as  burning  up  churches,  in  our  mode  of  expression,  can  only 
mean  the  edifices  where  churches  or  congregations  are  accus- 
tomed to  assemble.  What  other  places  of  assembling  the  Psalm- 
ist could  refer  to,  if  synagogues  did  not  then  exist,  it  is  hard 
to  understand.  But  admitting  that  synagogues  were  not  com- 
mon among  the  Jews  until  after  the  exile,  which  is  a  very  im- 
probable supposition,  the  fact  that  reading  the  Scriptures  on 
the  Sabbath  was  an  established  part  of  the  synagogue  service, 
goes  far  to  prove  that  it  Avas  a  sabbatical  service  long  before  the 
exile.  (6.)  The  place  of  the  fourth  command  in  the  decalogue  ; 
the  stress  laid  upon  it  in  the  Old  Testament ;  the  way  in  which 
it  is  spoken  of  in  the  prophets  ;  and  the  Psalms  appointed  to  be 
used  on  that  day,  as  for  example  the  ninety-second,  all  show 
that  the  day  was  set  apart  for  religious  duties  from  the  begin- 
ning. (7.)  This  may  also  be  argued  from  the  whole  character 
of  the  old  dispensation.  All  its  institutions  were  rehgious  ;  they 
were  all  intended  to  keep  alive  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God, 
and  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  of  Clirist.  It  would  be 
entirely  out  of  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  economy 
to  assume  that  its  most  important  and  solemn  holy  day  was 
purely  secular  in  its  design.^ 

It  is  admitted  that  the  precepts  of  the  decalogue  bind  the 
Church  in  all  ages  ;  while  the  specific  details  containe  1  in  the 
books  of  INIoses,  designed  to  point  out  the  way  in  which  the  duty 
they  enjoined  was  then  to  be  performed,  are  no  longer  in  force. 
The  fifth  commandment  still  binds  children  to  obey  their  par- 
ents ;  but  the  Jewish  law  giving  fathers  the  power  of  life  and 
death  over  their  children,  is  no  longer  in  force.  The  seventh 
«Ajmmandment  forbids- adultery,  but  the  ordeal  enjoined  for  the 
trial  of  a  woman  suspected  of  that  crime,  is  a  thing  of  the  past. 
The  same  principle  applies  to  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
commandment.     The  command  itself  is  still  in  force  ;  the  Mosaic 

1  The  doctrine  that  the  Jewish  sabbath  was  simply  a  day  of  relaxation  from  labour, 
was  advanced  among  Protestants  towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  by  Selden, 
in  his  work  De  Legibus  Hebroeoruin.  This  opinion  was  adopted  by  Vitringa  in  the  first 
book  of  his  Observationes  Sacra.  It  is  also  advocated  by  Biihr  in  his  Synib.  des  Mos.  CuU- 
tus.  The  contrary  doctrine  was  adopted  by  all  the  Reformers,  and  by  the  great  body  of 
Christian  theologians;  and  is  ably  sustained  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  treatise  Ueber  den 
Tag  des  Herrn,  pp.  29-41.  This  subject  is  discussed  in  the  January  number  of  the  Prince' 
tvn  Review  for  1831,  pp.  86-134. 

VOL.  III.  22 


338  PART  III.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

laws  respecting  the  mode  of  iis  observance  have  passed  away 
with  the  economy  to  which  they  belonged.  It  is  unjust  there- 
fore to  represent  the  advocates  of  the  continued  obligation  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  as  Judaizers.  They  are  no  more  Juda- 
izers  than  those  who  hold  that  the  other  precepts  of  the  dec- 
alogue are  still  in  force. 

There  are  two  rules  by  which  we  are  to  be  guided  in  determin- 
ing how  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  observed,  or  in  deciding  what  is, 
and  what  is  not  lawful  on  that  holy  day.  The  first  is,  the  design 
of  the  commandment.  What  is  consistent  with  that  design  is 
lawful ;  what  is  inconsistent  vdth  it,  is  unlawful.  The  second 
rule  is  to  be  found  in  the  precepts  and  example  of  our  Lord  and 
of  his  Apostles.  The  design  of  the  command  is  to  be  learned 
from  the  words  in  which  it  is  conveyed  and  from  other  parts  of 
the  word  of  God.  From  these  sources  it  is  plain  that  the  design 
of  the  institution,  as  already  remarked,  was  in  the  main  twofold. 
First,  to  secure  rest  from  all  worldly  cares  and  avocations  ;  to 
arrest  for  a  time  the  current  of  the  worldly  hfe  of  men,  not  only 
lest  their  minds  and  bodies  should  be  overworked,  but  also  that 
opportunity  should  be  afforded  for  other  and  higher  interests  to 
occupy  their  thoughts.  And  secondly,  that  God  should  be  prop- 
erly worshipped,  his  word  duly  studied  and  taught,  and  the  soul 
brought  under  the  influence  of  the  things  unseen  and  eternal. 
Any  man  who  makes  the  design  of  the  Sabbath  as  thus  revealed 
in  Scripture  his  rule  of  conduct  on  that  day,  can  hardly  fail  in  its 
due  observance.  The  day  is  to  be  kept  holy  unto  the  Lord.  In 
Scriptural  usage  to  hallow  or  make  holy  is  to  set  apart  to  the 
service  of  God.  Thus  the  tabernacle,  the  temple,  and  all  its 
utensils  were  made  holy.  In  this  sense  the  Sabbath  is  holy.  It 
is  to  be  devoted  to  the  duties  of  religion,  and  what  is  inconsistent 
with  such  devotion,  is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the  institution. 

It  is  however  to  be  remembered  that  the  specific  object  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath  is  the  commemoration-  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.  All  the  exercises  of  the  day,  there- 
fore, should  have  a  special  reference  to  Him  and  to  his  redeeming 
work.  It  is  the  day  in  which  He  is  to  be  worshipped,  thanked, 
and  praised ;  in  which  men  are  to  be  called  upon  to  accept  his 
offers  of  grace,  and  to  rejoice  in  the  hope  of  his  salvation.  It  is 
therefore  a  day  of  joy.  It  is  utterly  incongruous  to  make  it  a 
day  of  gloom  or  fasting.  In  the  early  Church  men  were  forbid- 
den to  pray  on  their  knees  on  that  day.  They  were  to  stand 
erect,  exulting  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  of  God's  re- 
deeming love. 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  339 

llie  second  rule  for  our  guidance  is  to  be  found  in  the  precepts 
and  example  of  our  Lord.  In  the  first  place,  He  lays  down  the 
principle,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath."  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Christ  says,  "  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,"  not  for  the  Jews,  not  for  the  people  of  any 
one  age  or  nation,  but  for  man  ;  for  man  as  man,  and  therefore 
for  all  men.  Moral  duties,  however,  often  conflict,  and  then  the 
lower  must  yield  to  the  higher.  The  life,  the  health,  and  the 
well-being  of  a  man  are  higher  ends  in  a  given  case,  than  the 
punctilious  observance  of  any  external  service.  This  is  the  rule 
laid  do^vn  by  the  prophet  (Hosea  vi.  6)  :  "I  desired  mercy,  and 
not  sacrifice  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt  offer- 
ing." This  passage  our  Lord  quotes  twice  in  application  to  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  and  thus  establishes  the  general  principle 
for  our  guidance,  that  it  is  right  to  do  on  the  Sabbath  whatever 
mercy  or  a  due  regard  to  the  comfort  or  welfare  of  ourselves  or 
others  requires  to  be  done.  Christ,  therefore,  says  expressly,  "  It 
is  la^vful  to  do  well  (KaAw?  Troieii',  that  is,  as  the  context  shows, 
to  confer  benefits)  on  the  Sabbath  days."  (Matt.  xii.  12.  See 
also  Mark  iii.  4.) 

Again,  we  are  told  by  the  same  authority,  that  "  the  priests  in 
the  temple  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are  blameless."  (Matt.  xii.  5.) 
The  services  of  the  temple  were  complicated  and  laborious,  and 
yet  were  lawful  on  the  Sabbath.  On  another  occasion  He  said  to 
his  accusers,  "  If  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day  receive  circumcision, 
that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be  broken  ;  are  ye  angry  at  me, 
because  I  have  made  a  man  every  wliit  whole  on  the  Sabbath 
day?  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but  judge  right- 
eous judgment."  (John  vii.  23,  24.)  From  this  we  learn  that 
whatever  is  necessary  for  the  due  celebration  of  religious  worship, 
or  for  attendance  thereon,  is  lawful  on  the  Sabbath. 

Again  in  Luke  xiv.  1-14,  we  read,  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  as 
he  went  into  the  house  of  one  of  the  chief  Pharisees,  to  eat  bread 
on  the  Sabbath  day,  that  they  watched  him.  And,  behold,  there 
was  a  certain  man  before  him,  which  had  the  dropsy.  And  Jesus 
answering,  spake  unto  the  lawyers  and  Pharisees,  saying.  Is  it 
lawful  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  day  ?     And  they  held  their  peace. 

And  he  took  him,  and  healed  him,  and  let  him  go And 

he  put  forth  a  parable  to  those  which  were  bidden,  when  he 
marked  how  they  chose  out  the  chief  rooms  ;  saying  unto  them," 
etc.,  etc.  This  was  evidently  a  large  entertainment  to  which 
guests  were  "  bidden."     Christ,  therefore,  thought  right,  in  the 


840  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

prosecution  of  his  work,  to  attend  on  such  entertainments  on  the 
Sabbath. 

The  frequency  with  which  our  Lord  was  accused  of  Sabbath- 
breaking  by  the  Pharisees,  proves  that  his  mode  of  observing  that 
day  was  very  different  from  theirs,  and  the  way  in  wliich  He 
vindicated  himself,  proves  that  He  regarded  the  Sabbath  as  a 
divine  institution  of  perpetual  obligation.  It  had  been  easy  for 
Him  to  say  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  was  no  longer -in  force  ; 
that  He,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  erased  it  from  the  decalogue. 
It  may  indeed  be  said  that  as  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  in 
force  until  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  until  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  as  a  matter  of  course 
then  obligatory,  and  therefore  that  Christ  so  regarded  it.  In 
answer  to  this,  however,  it  is  obvious  to  remark,  that  Christ  did 
not  hesitate  to  abrogate  those  of  the  laws  of  Mases  which  were 
in  conflict  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  This  He  did  with  the 
laws  relating  to  polygamy  and  divorce.  Under  the  old  dispen- 
sation it  was  lawful  for  a  man  to  have  more  than  one  wife  ;  and 
also  to  put  away  a  wife  by  giving  her  a  bill  of  divorcement. 
Both  of  these  things  Christ  declared  should  not  be  allowed  under 
the  Gospel.  The  fact  that  He  dealt  with  the  Sabbath  just  as  He 
did  with  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  precepts  of  the  decalogue, 
which  the  Pharisees  had  inisinterpreted,  shows  that  He  regarded 
the  fourth  commandment  as  belonging  to  the  ,same  category  as 
the  others.  His  example  affords  us  a  safe  guide  as  to  the  Avay  in 
which  the  day  is  to  be  observed. 

The  Sunday  Laws. 

It  is  very  common,  especially  for  foreign-born  citizens,  to  object 
to  all  laws  made  by  the  civil  governments  m  this  country  to  pre- 
vent the  public  violation  of  the  Lord's  Day.  It  is  urged  that  as 
there  is  in  the  United  States  an  entire  separation  of  the  Church 
and  State,  it  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  that  the 
observance  of  any  religious  institution  should  be  enforced  by  civil 
laws.  It  is  further  objected  that  as  all  citizens  have  equal  rights 
irrespective  of  their  religious  opinions,  it  is  an  infringement,  of 
those  rights  if  one  class  of  the  people  are  required  to  conform 
their  conduct  to  the  religious  opinions  of  another  class.  Why 
should  Jews,  Mohammedans,  or  infidels  be  required  to  respect 
the  Christian  Sabbath  ?  Why  should  any  man,  who  has  no 
faith  in  the  Sabbath  as  a  divine  institution,  be  prevented  from 
doing  on  that  day  whatever  is  lawful  on  other  days  ?    If  the  State 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  841 

may  require  the  people  to  respect  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest,  why 
may  it  not  require  the  people  to  obey  any  or  all  other  precepts 
of  the  Bible  ? 

State  of  the   Question. 

It  is  conceded,  (1.)  That  in  every  free  country  every  man  has 
equal  rights  with  his  fellow-citizens,  and  stands  on  the  same 
ground  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  (2.)  That  in  the  United  States 
no  form  of  religion  can  be  established ;  that  no  religious  test  for 
the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  or  for  holding  of  office  can 
be  imposed  ;  and  that  no  prefei'ence  can  be  given  to  the  members 
of  one  religious  denomination  above  those  of  another.  (3.)  That 
no  man  can  be  forced  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  any  church, 
or  of  any  religious  institution.  (4.)  That  every  man  is  at  liberty 
to  regulate  his  conduct  and  life  according  to  his  convictions  or 
conscience,  provided  he  does  not  violate  the  law  of  the  land. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  no  less  true,  — 

1.  That  a  nation  is  not  a  mere  conglomeration  of  individuals. 
It  is  an  organized  body.  It  has  of  necessity  its  national  life,  its 
national  organs,  national  principles  of  action,  national  character, 
and  national  responsibility. 

2.  In  every  free  country  the  government  must,  in  its  organ- 
ization and  mode  of  action,  be  an  expression  of  the  mind  and  will 
of  the  people. 

3.  As  men  are  rational  creatures,  the  government  cannot 
banish  all  sense  and  reason  from  their  action,  because  there  may 
be  idiots  among  the  people. 

4.  As  men  are  moral  beings,  it  is  impossible  that  the  govern- 
ment should  act  as  though  there  were  no  distinction  between 
right  and  wrong.  It  cannot  legalize  theft  and  murder.  No  mat- 
ter how  much  it  might  enrich  itself  by  rapine  or  by  the  extermi- 
nation of  other  nations,  it  would  deserve  and  receive  universal 
condemnation  and  execration,  should  it  thus  set  at  nought  the 
bonds  of  moral  obligation.  This  necessity  of  obedience  to  the 
moral  law  on  the  part  of  civil  governments,  does  not  arise  from 
the  fact  that  they  are  instituted  for  the  protection  of  the  lives, 
rights,  and  property  of  the  people.  Why  have  our  own  and  other 
Christian  nations  pronounced  the  slave-trade  piracy  and  punish- 
able with  death  *?  Not  because  it  interferes  with  the  rights  or 
liberty  of  their  citizens  but  because  it  is  wicked.  Cruelty  to 
animals  is  visited  with  civil  penalties,  not  on  the  principle  of  profit 
and  Icjss,  but  because  it  is  a  violation  of  the  moral  law.     As  it  \% 


842  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

impossible  for  the  individual  man  to  disregard  all  moral  obliga- 
tions, it  is  no  less  impossible  on  the  part  of  civil  governments. 

5.  Men  moreover  are  religious  beings.  They  can  no  more 
ignore  that  element  of  their  nature  than  their  reason  or  their 
conscience.  It  is  no  matter  what  they  may  say,  or  may  pretend 
to  think,  the  law  which  binds  them  to  allegiance  to  God,  is  just 
as  inexorable  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  They  can  no  more 
emancipate  themselves  from  the  one  than  they  can  from  the  other. 
Moralit}^  concerns  their  duty  to  their  fellow-men ;  religion  con- 
cerns their  duty  to  God.  The  latter  binds  the  conscience  as 
much  as  the  former.  It  attends  the  man  everywhere.  It  must 
influence  his  conduct  as  an  individual,  as  the  head  of  a  family,  as 
a  man  of  business,  as  a  legislator,  and  as  an  executive  oflicer. 
It  is  absurd  to  say  that  civil  governments  have  nothing  to  do 
with  religion.  That  is  not  true  even  of  a  fire  company,  or  of  a 
manufactory,  or  of  a  banking-house.  The  religion  embraced  by 
the  individuals  composing  these  associations  must  influence  their 
corporate  action,  as  well  as  their  individual  conduct.  If  a  man 
may  not  blaspheme,  a  publishing  firm  may  not  print  and  dis- 
seminate a  blasphemous  book.  A  civil  government  cannot  ignore 
religion  any  more  than  physiology.  It  was  not  constituted  to 
teach  either  the  one  or  the  other-,  but  it  must,  by  a  like  necessity, 
conform  its  action  to  the  laws  of  both.  Indeed  it  would  be  far 
safer  for  a  government  to  pass  an  act  violating  the  laws  of  health, 
than  one  violating  the  religious  convictions  of  its  citizens.  The 
one  would  be  unwise,  the  other  would  be  tyrannical.  Men  put 
up  v^ith  folly,  with  more  patience  than  they  do  with  injustice. 
It  is  vain  for  the  potsherds  of  the  earth  to  contend  with  their 
Maker.  They  must  submit  to  the  laws  of  their  nature  not  only 
as  sentient,  but  also  as  moral  and  religious  beings.  And  it  ia 
time  that  blatant  atheists,  whether  communists,  scientists,  or  phi- 
losophers, should  know  that  they  are  as  much  and  as  justly  the 
objects  of  pity  and  contempt,  as  of  indignation  to  all  right-minded 
men.  By  right-minded  men,  is  meant  men  who  think,  feel,  and 
act  according  to  the  laws  of  their  nature.  Those  laws  are  or- 
dained, administered,  and  enforced  by  God,  and  there  is  no  escape 
from  their  obligation,  or  from  the  penalties  attached  to  their 
violation. 

6.  The  people  of  this  country  being  rational,  moral,  and  relig- 
ious beings,  the  government  must  be  administered  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  reason,  morality,  and  religion.  By  a  like  necessity  of  right, 
the  people   being  Christians  and    Protestants,  the    government 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COMMANDMENT.  343 

must  be  administered  according  to  the  principles  of  Protestant 
Christianity.  By  this  is  not  meant  that  the  government  should 
teach  Christianity,  or  make  the  profession  of  it  a  condition  of 
citizenship,  or  a  test  for  office.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  the  govern- 
ment is  called  upon  to  punish  every  violation  of  Christian  prin- 
ciple or  precept.  It  is  not  called  upon  to  punish  every  violation 
of  the  moral  law.  But  as  it  cannot  violate  the  moral  law  in  its 
own  action,  or  require  the  peoj)le  to  violate  it,  so  neither  can  it 
ignore  Christianity  in  its  official  action.  It  cannot  require  the 
peoj)le  or  any  of  its  own  officers  to  do  what  Christianity  forbids, 
nor  forbid  their  doing  anything  which  Christianity  enjoins.  It 
has  no  more  right  to  forbid  that  the  Bible  should  be  taught  in  the 
23ublic  schools,  than  it  has  to  enjoin  that  the  Koran  should  be 
taught  in  them.  If  Christianity  requires  that  one  day  in  seven 
should  be  a  day  of  rest  from  all  worldly  avocations,  the  govern- 
ment of  a  Christian  people  cannot  require  any  class  of  the  com- 
munity or  its  own  officers  to  labour  on  that  dsij,  except  in  cases 
of  necessity  or  mercy.  Should  it,  on  the  ground  that  it  had 
nothing  to  do  with  religion,  disregard  that  day,  and  direct  that 
the  custom-houses,  the  courts  of  law,  and  the  legislative  halls 
should  be  open  on  the  Lord's  Day,  and  public  business  be  trans- 
acted as  on  other  days,  it  would  be  an  act  of  tyranny,  which 
would  justify  rebellion.  It  would  be  tantamount  to  enacting  that 
no  Christian  should  hold  any  office  under  the  government,  or  have 
any  share  in  making  or  administering  the  laws  of  the  country. 
The  nation  would  be  in  complete  subjection  to  a  handful  of  im- 
ported atheists  and  infidels. 

Proof  that  this  is  a  Christian  and  Protestant  Nation. 

The  proposition  that  the  United  States  of  America  are  a  Chris- 
tian and  Protestant  nation,  is  not  so  much  the  assertion  of  a  prin- 
ciple as  the  statement  of  a  fact.  That  fact  is  not  simply  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  people  are  Christians  and  Protestants,  but 
that  the  organic  life,  the  institutions,  laws,  and  official  action  of 
the  government,  whether  that  action  be  legislative,  judicial,  or  ex- 
ecutive, is,  and  of  right  should  be,  and  in  fact  must  be,  in  accord- 
ance -vvith  the  principles  of  Protestant  Christianity. 

1.  This  is  a  Christian  and  Protestant  nation  in  the  sense  stated 
in  virtue  of  a  universal  and  necessary  law.  If  you  plant  an 
acorn,  you  get  an  oak.  If  you  plant  a  cedar,  you  get  a  cedar.  If 
a  country  be  settled  by  Pagans  or  Mohammedans,  it  develops  into 
a  Pagan  or  Mohammedan  community.     By  the  same  law,  if  a 


344  PART   III.     Cii.   XIX  -  THE   LAW. 

country  be  taken  possession  of  and  settled  by  Protestant  Chris- 
tians, tbe  nation  which  they  come  to  constitute  must  be  Protes- 
tant and  Christian.  This  country  was  settled  by  Protestants. 
For  the  first  hundred  years  of  our  history  they  constituted  almost 
the  only  element  of  our  population.  As  a  matter  of  course  they 
were  governed  by  their  religion  as  individuals,  in  their  families, 
and  in  all  their  associations  for  business,  and  for  municipal,  state, 
and  national  government.  This  was  just  as  much  a  matter  of 
necessity  as  that  they  should  act  morally  in  all  these  different 
relations. 

2.  It  is  a  historical  fact  that  Protestant  Christianity  is  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  has  been  from  the  beginning.  As  the  great  ma- 
jority of  the  early  settlers  of  the  country  were  from  Great  Britain, 
they  declared  that  the  common  law  of  England  should  be  the  law 
here.  But  Christianity  is  the  basis  of  the  common  law  of  Eng- 
land, and  is  therefore  of  the  law  of  this  country ;  and  so  our  courts 
have  repeatedly  decided.  It  is  so  not  merely  because  of  such  de- 
cisions. Courts  cannot  reverse  facts.  Protestant  Christianity  has 
been,  is,  and  must  be  the  law  of  the  land,  Whatever  Protestant 
Christianity  forbids,  the  law  of  the  land  (within  its  sphere,  i.  e., 
within  the  sphere  in  which  civil  authority  may  appropriately  act) 
forbids.  Christianity  forbids  polygamy  and  arbitrary  divorce,  so 
does  the  civil  law.  Romanism  forbids  divorce  even  on  the  ground 
of  adultery  ;  Protestantism  admits  it  on  that  ground.  The  laws 
of  all  the  states  conform  in  this  matter  to  the  Protestant  rule. 
Christianity  forbids  all  unnecessary  labour,  or  the  transaction  of 
worldly  business,  on  the  Lord's  Day  ;  that  day  accordingly  is  a 
dies  non,  throughout  the  land.  No  contract  is  binding,  made  on 
that  day.  No  debt  can  be  collected  on  the  Christian  Sabbath.  If  a 
man  hires  himself  for  any  service  by  the  month  or  year,  he  cannot 
be  required  to  labour  on  that  day.  All  public  offices  are  closed, 
and  all  official  business  is  suspended.  From  Maine  to  Georgia, 
from  ocean  to  ocean,  one  day  in  the  week,  by  the  law  of  God  and 
by  the  law  of  the  land,  the  people  rest. 

This  controlling  Influence  of  Christianity  is  Reasonable  and  Right, 

It  is  in  accordance  with  analogy.  If  a  man  goes  to  China,  he 
expects  to  find  the  government  administered  according  to  the 
religion  of  the  country.  If  he  goes  to  Turkey,  he  expects  to  find 
the  Koran  supreme  and  regulating  all  public  action.  If  he  goes 
to  a  Protestant  country,  he  has  no  right  to  complain,  should  he 
find  the  Bible  in  the  ascendancy  and  exerting  its  benign  influence 
not  only  on  the  people,  but  also  on  the  government. 


§8.]  THE   FOURTH   COIklMANDMENT.  345 

The  principle  that  the  religion  of  a  people  rightfully  controls 
the  action  of  the  government,  has  of  course  its  limitation.  If  the 
rehgion  itself  be  evil  and  require  what  is  morally  wrong,  then  as 
men  cannot  have  the  right  to  act  wickedly,  it  is  plain  that  it 
would  be  wrong  for  the  government  to  conform  to  its  requirements. 
If  a  religion  should  enjoin  infanticide,  or  the  murder  of  the  aged 
or  infkm,  neither  the  people  nor  the  government  should  conform 
their  conduct  to  its  laws.  But  where  the  religion  of  a  people  re- 
quires nothing  unjust  or  cruel  or  in  any  way  immoral,  then  those 
who  come  to  live  where  it  prevails  are  bound  to  submit  quietly  to 
its  controlling  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  country. 

The  principle  contended  for  is  recognized  m  all  other  depart- 
ments of  life.  If  a  number  of  Christian  men  associate  themselves 
as  a  manufacturing  or  banking  company,  it  would  be  competent  for 
them  to  admit  unbelievers  in  Christianity  into  their  association, 
and  to  allow  them  their  full  share  in  its  management  and  control. 
But  it  would  be  utterly  unreasonable  for  such  unbelievers  to  set 
up  a  cry  of  religious  persecution,  or  of  infringement  of  their  rights 
and  liberty,  because  all  the  business  of  the  company  was  suspended 
upon  the  Lord's  Day.  These  new  members  knew  the  character 
and  principles  of  those  with  whom  they  sought  to  be  associated. 
They  knew  that  Christians  would  assert  their  right  to  act  as 
Christians.  To  require  them  to  renounce  their  religion  would  be 
simply  preposterous. 

When  Protestant  Christians  came  to  this  country  they  possessed 
and  subdued  the  land.  They  worshipped  God,  and  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  acknowledged  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice.  They  introduced 
their  religion  into  their  families,  their  schools,  and  their  colleges. 
They  abstained  from  all  ordinary  business  on  the  Lord's  Day,  and 
devoted  it  to  religion.  They  built  churches,  erected  school-houses, 
and  taught  their  children  to  read  the  Bible  and  to  receive  and 
obey  it  as  the  word  of  God.  They  formed  themselves  as  Chris- 
tians into  municipal  and  state  organizations.  They  acknowledged 
God  in  their  legislative  assemblies.  They  prescribed  oaths  to  be 
taken  in  his  name.  They  closed  their  courts,  their  places  of  busi- 
ness, their  legislatures,  and  all  places  under  the  public  control,  on 
the  Lord's  Day.  They  declared  Christianity  to  be  part  of  the  com- 
mon law  of  the  land.  In  the  process  of  time  thousands  have  come 
among  us,  who  are  neither  Protestants  nor  Christians.  Some  are 
papists,  some  Jews,  some  infidels,  and  some  atheists.  All  are  wel- 
comed ;  all  are  admitted  to  equal  rights  and  privileges.    All  are 


846  PART  m.     Cn.   XIX. —THE   LAW. 

allowed  to  acquire  property,  and  to  vote  in  every  election,  made 
eligible  to  all  offices,  and  invested  with  equal  influence  in  all  pub- 
lic affairs.  All  are  allowed  to  worship  as  they  please,  or  not  to 
worship  at  all,  if  they  see  fit.  No  man  is  molested  for  his  religion 
or  for  his  want  of  religion.  No  man  is  required  to  profess  any 
form  of  faith,  or  to  join  any  religious  association.  More  than  this 
cannot  reasonably  be  demanded.  More,  however,  is  demanded. 
The  infidel  demands  that  the  government  should  be  conducted  on 
the  principle  that  Christianity  is  false.  The  atheist  demands  that 
it  should  be  conducted  on  the  assumption  that  there  is  no  God, 
and  the  positivist  on  the  principle  that  men  are  not  free  agents. 
The  sufficient  answer  to  all  this  is,  that  it  cannot  possibly  be 
done. 


The  Demands  of  Infidels  are  Unjust. 

The  demands  of  those  who  require  that  religion,  and  especially 
■Christianity,  should  be  ignored  in  our  national,  state,  and  muni- 
cipal laws,  are  not  only  unreasonable,  but  they  are  in  the  high- 
est degree  unjust  and  tyrannical.  It  is  a  condition  of  service  in 
connection  with  any  railroad  which  is  operated  on  Sundays,  that 
the  employee  be  not  a  Christian.  If  Christianity  is  not  to  con- 
trol the  action  of  our  municipal,  state,  and  general  governments, 
then  if  elections  be  ordered  to  be  held  on  the  Lord's  Day,  Chris- 
tians cannot  vote.  If  all  the  business  of  the  country  is  to  go  on, 
on  that  as  on  other  days,  no  Christian  can  hold  office.  We 
should  thus  have  not  a  religious,  but  an  anti-religious  test-act. 
Such  is  the  free-thinker's  idea  of  liberty.^  But  still  further,  if 
Christianity  is  not  to  control  the  laws  of  the  country,  then  as 
monogamy  is  a  purely  Christian  institution,  we  can  have  no 
laws  against  polygamy,  arbitrary  divorce,  or  "  free  love."  All 
this  must  be  yielded  to  the  anti-Christian  party  ;  and  consistency 
will  demand  that  we  yield  to  the  atheists,  the  oath  and  the 
decalogue  ;  and  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  must  be  confined  to 
blasphemers.  Since  the  fall  of  Lucifer,  no  such  tyrant  has  been 
made  known  to  men  as  August  Comte,  the  atheist.  If,  there- 
fore, any  man  wishes  to  antedate  perdition,  he  has  nothing^  to  do 
but  to  become  a  free-thinker  and  join  in  the  shout,  "  Civil  gov- 
ernment has  nothing  to  do  with  religion ;  and  religion  has 
nothing  to  do  with  civil  government." 

1  A  free-thinker  is  a  man  whose  understanding  is  emancipated  from  his  conscience.    It 
IS  therefore  natural  for  him  to  wish  to  see  civil  government  emancipated  from  religion. 


I 


§8.1  THE   FOURTH   COIMMANDMENT.  347 

Conclusion. 

We  are  bound,  therefore,  to  insist  upon  the  maintenance  and 
faithful  execution  of  the  laws  enacted  for  the  protection  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  Christianity  does  not  teach  that  men  can 
be  made  religious  by  law ;  nor  does  it  demand  that  men  should  be 
required  by  the  civil  authority  to  profess  any  particular  form  of 
religious  doctrine,  or  to  attend  upon  religious  services ;  but  it 
does  enjoin  that  men  should  abstain  from  all  unnecessary  worldly 
avocations  on  the  Lord's  Day.  This  civil  Sabbath,  this  cessation 
from  worldly  business,  is  what  the  civil  government  in  Christian 
countries  is  called  upon  to  enforce.  (1.)  Because  it  is  the  right 
of  Christians  to  be  allowed  to  rest  on  that  day,  which  they  can- 
not do,  mthout  forfeiting  their  citizenship,  unless  all  public  busi- 
ness be  arrested  on  that  day.  (2.)  Because  such  rest  is  the 
command  of  God  ;  and  this  command  binds  the  conscience  as  much 
as  any  other  command  in  the  decalogue.  So  far  as  the  point  in 
hand  is  concerned,  it  matters  not  whether  such  be  the  command 
of  God  or  not ;  so  long  as  the  people  believe  it,  it  binds  their  con- 
science ;  and  this  conscientious  belief  the  government  is  bound  to 
respect,  and  must  act  accordingly.  (3.)  Because  the  civil  Sabbath 
is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  our  free  institutions,  and  of 
the  good  order  of  society.  The  indispensable  condition  of  social 
order  is  either  despotic  power  in  the  magistrate,  or  good  morals 
among  the  people.  Morality  without  religion  is  impossible ; 
religion  cannot  exist  without  knowledge ;  knowledge  cannot  be 
disseminated  among  the  people,  unless  there  be  a  class  of 
teachers,  and  time  allotted  for  their  instruction.  Christ  has 
made  all  his  ministers,  teachers ;  He  has  commanded  them  to 
teach  all  nations  ;  He  has  appointed  one  day  in  seven  to  be  set 
apart  for  such  instruction.  It  is  a  historical  fact  that  since  the 
introduction  of  Christianity,  nine  tenths  of  the  people  have 
derived  the  greater  part  of  their  religious  knowledge  from  the 
services  of  the  sanctuary.  If  the  Sabbath,  therefore,  be  abol- 
ished, the  fountain  of  life  for  the  people  will  be  sealed.^ 

Hengstenberg,  after  referring  to  the  authority  of  the  Church 
and  other  grounds,  for  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  closes 

i  The  Sabbath  and  Free  Institutions.  A  paper  read  before  the  National  Sabbath  Con- 
vention, Saratoga,  August  13,  1863,  by  the  Rev.  Mark  Hopkins,  D.  D.,  President  of 
Williams  College,  Jlass.  See  also  an  able  article  from  the  pen  of  the  Hev.  Joshua  H. 
Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  entitled,  "A  Nation's  Right  to  Worship  God,"  in  the  Princeton  Review 
Jor  October,  1859;  also  the  article  on  "  Sundaj- Laws,"  in  the  same  nunrber  of  that 
journal. 


348  PART   III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

his  discus.sion  of  the  subject  with  these  words :  "  Thank  God 
these  are  only  the  outworlcs ;  the  real  fortress  is  the  command 
that  sounded  out  from  Sinai,  with  the  other  divine  commands 
therewitli  connected,  as  preparatory,  confirmatory,  or  explana- 
tory. The  institution  was  far  too  important,  and  the  tempta- 
tions too  powerful,  that  the  solid  ^-ound  of  Scriptural  command 
could  be  dispensed  with.  ...  It  is  as  plain  as  day  that  the 
obligation  of  the  Old  Testament  command  instead  of  being  les- 
sened is  increased.  This  follows  of  course  from  the  fact  that  the 
redemption  through  Christ  is  infinitely  more  glorious  than  the 
deliverance  of  the  Israelites  out  of  Egj^pt,  which  in  the  preface 
to  the  Ten  Commandments  is  refeiTed  to  as  a  special  motive  to 
obedience.  No  ingratitude  is  blacker  than  refusing  to  obey  Him 
who  for  our  sakes  gave  up  his  only  begotten  Son."-^  He  had  said 
before  that  the  Sabbath  "  rests  on  the  unalterable  necessities  of 
our  nature,  inasmuch  as  men  inevitably  become  godless  if  the 
cares  and  labours  of  their  eatthly  life  be  not  regularly  inter- 
rupted." ^ 

§  9.     The  Fifth  Commandment. 
Its  Design. 

The  general  principle  of  duty  enjoined  in  this  commandment, 
is  that  we  should  feel  and  act  in  a  becoming  manner  towards 
our  superiors.  It  matters  not  in  what  their  superiority  consists, 
whether  in  age,  office,  power,  knowledge,  or  excellence.  There 
are  certain  feelings,  and  a  certain  line  of  conduct  due  to  those 
who  are  over  us,  for  that  very  reason,  determined  and  modified 
in  each  case  by  the  degree  and  nature  of  that  superiority.  To 
superiors  are  due,  to  each  according  to  the  relation  in  which  he 
stands  to  us,  reverence,  obedience,  and  gratitude.  The  ground 
of  this  obligation  is  to  be  found,  (1.)  In  the  will  of  God,  w]io  has 
enjoined  this  duty  upon  all  rational  creatures.  (2.)  In  the 
nature  of  the  relation  itself.  Superiority  supposes,  in  some  form 
or  degree,  on  the  part  of  the  inferior,  dependence  and  indebted- 
ness, and  therefore  calls  for  reverence,  gratitude,  and  obedience ; 
and,  (3.)  In  expediency,  as  the  moral  order  of  the  divine  gov- 
ernment and  of  human  society  depend  upon  this  due  submis- 
sion to  authority. 

In  the  case  of  God,  as  his  superiority  is  infinite  the  submission 
of  his  creatures  must  be  absolute.  To  Him  we  owe  adoration 
or  the   profoundest   reverence,  the  most  fervent  gratitude,  and 

1  Uebii-  ihii  T>n:  -A-.s  //trni,  Ikrliii,  1852,  pp.  92-94.  2  /bid.  p.  40. 


§9.]  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  349 

implicit  obedience.  The  fifth  commandment,  however,  concerns 
our  duty  to  our  fellow-creatures.  First  in  order  and  in  impor- 
tance is  the  duty  of  children  to  their  parents,  hence  the  general 
dut}''  is  embodied  in  the  specific  command,  "  Honour  thy  father 
and  thy  mother." 

The  Filial  Relation. 

When  a  child  is  born  into  the  world  it  is  entirely  helpless  and 
dependent.  As  it  derives  its  existence  from  its  parents,  so  it 
would  immediately  perish  without  their  assiduous  and  constant 
caxe.  The  parents  are  not  only  its  superiors  in  knowledge,  in 
power,  and  in  every  other  attribute  of  humanity  ;  but  they  are 
also  the  proximate  source  of  all  good  to  the  child.  They  protect, 
cherish,  feed,  clothe,  educate,  and  endow  it.  All  the  good  be- 
stowed, is  bestowed  disinterestedly.  Self  is  constantl}^  sacrificed. 
The  love  of  parents  to  their  children  is  mysterious  and  immutable, 
as  well  as  self-sacrificing.  It  is  a  form  of  love  which  none  but  a 
parent  can  know.  A  mother's  love  is  a  mystery  and  a  wonder. 
It  is  the  most  perfect  analogue  of  the  love  of  God. 

As  the  relation  in  which  parents  stand  to  their  children  has 
this  close  analogy  to  the  relation  in  which  God  stands  to  his 
rational  creatures,  and  especially  to  his  own  people,  so  the  duties 
resulting  from  that  relation  are  analogous.  They  are  expressed 
by  the  same  word.  Filial  piety  is  as  correct  an  expression  as  it 
is  common.  Parents  stand  to  their  dependent  children,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  place  of  God.  They  are  the  natural  objects  of  the 
child's  love,  reverence,  gratitude,  confidence,  and  devotion.  These 
are  the  sentiments  which  naturally  flow  out  of  the  relation ;  and 
Avhich  in  all  ordinary  cases  do  flow  from  it ;  so  that  Calvin  is  jus- 
tified in  saying  that  children  destitute  of  these  feelings,  "  monstra 
sunt  non  homines."  This  endearing  and  intimate  relation  be- 
tween parents  and  children  (which  cannot  exist  where  monog- 
amy is  not  the  law),  binding  all  in  the  closest  union  which  can 
exist  among  men,  makes  the  family  the  corner-stone  of  the  well- 
being  of  society  on  earth,  and  the  type  of  the  blessedness  of 
heaven.  The  Church  is  the  family  of  God.  He  is  the  Father, 
its  members  are  brethren. 

While  the  relative  duties  of  parents  and  children  must  be 
everywhere  and  always  essentially  the  same,  yet  they  are  more  or 
less  modified  by  varying  conditions  of  society.  There  are  laws 
on  this  subject  in  the  Bible,  which  being  intended  for  the  state  of 
things  existmg  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  are  no  longer  binding 


350  PART  in.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

upon  us.  It  was  unavoidable  in  the  patriarchal  state  of  society, 
and  especially  in  its  nomadic  state,  that  the  father  of  a  family 
should  be  at  once  father,  magistrate,  and  priest.  And  it  was 
natural  and  right  that  many  of  the  parental  prerogatives  neces- 
sary in  such  a  state  of  society,  should  be  retained  in  the  tempo- 
rary and  transition  state  organized  under  the  Mosaic  institutions. 
We  find  accordingly  that  the  laws  of  Moses  invested  parents 
with  powers  which  can  no  longer  properly  belong  to  them ;  and 
sustained  parental  authority  by  penal  enactments  which  are  no 
longer  necessary.  Thus  it  was  ordered,  "  He  that  curseth  (or 
revileth,  Septuagint  o  KaKoXoywv,  Vulgate  '  qui  maledixerit ')  his 
father  or  his  mother  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  (Exod.  xxi. 
17.)  In  the  fifteenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  it  is  said,  "  He 
that  smiteth  his  father  or  his  mother,  shall  be  surely  jjut  to 
death."  (Compare  Deut.  xxvii.  16  ;  Prov.  xx.  20  ;  Matt.  xv.  4.) 
It  may  be  remarked  here,  in  passing,  that  our  Lord's  comment  on 
this  commandment  given  in  Matthew  xv.  4-6,  shows  that  the 
honouring  of  their  parents  required  of  children,  does  not  mean 
simply  the  cherishing  right  feelings  towards  them,  but  as  Avell 
the  ministering  to  their  support  when  necessary.  Christ  said  to 
the  Pharisees,  "  God  commanded,  saying,  Honour  thy  father  and 
mother  ;  .  .  .  .  but  ye  say,  Whosoever  shall  say  to  his  father 
or  his  mother.  It  is  a  gift  (consecrated  to  God),  by  whatsoever 
thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me,  and  honour  not  his  father  or 
his  mother,  he  shall  be  free."  That  is,  the  Pharisees  taught  that 
a  son  might  evade  the  obligation  to  honour,  i.  g.,  to  support  his 
father  or  mother,  by  saying  that  his  property  was  consecrated  to 
God. 

The  Mosaic  law  also  enacted  that  "  If  a  man  have  a  stubborn 
and  rebellious  son,  which  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father,  or 
the  voice  of  his  mother,  and  that,  when  they  have  chastened  him, 
will  not  hearken  unto  them  ;  then  shall  his  father  and  his  mother 
lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring  him  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city, 
and  unto  the  gates  of  his  place  :  and  they  shall  say  unto  the  elders 
of  his  city.  This  our  son  is  stubborn  and  rebellious  ;  he  will  not 
obey  our  voice  ;  he  is  a  glutton,  and  a  drunkard.  And  a.ll  the 
men  of  the  city  shall  stone  him  with  stones,  that  he  die."  (Deut. 
xxi.  18-21.) 

Fathers  under  the  old  economy  had  the  right  to  choose  wives 
for  their  sons  and  to  give  their  daughters  in  marriage.  (Gen. 
xxiv.  ;  Ex.  xxi.  9 ;  Judges  xiv.  2  ;  Gen.  xxix.  18 ;  xxxiv.  12.) 
Children  also  were  liable  to  be  sold  to  satisfy  the  debts  of  their 


§9.]  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  351 

fathers.  (Levit.  xxv.  39-41  ;  2  Kings  iv.  1 ;  Is.  1.  1 ;  j\Iatt. 
xviii.  25.)  These  judicial  enactments  have  passed  away.  They 
serve  to  prove,  however,  how  intimate  in  tlie  sight  of  God  is  the 
relation  between  parents  and  children,  A  father's  benediction 
was  coveted  as  the  greatest  blessing;  and  his  curse  deprecated 
as  a  fearful  evil.     (Gen.  xxvii.  4,  12,  34-38  ;   xlix.  2  ff.) 

In  the  New  Testament  the  duty  enjoined  in  the  fifth  com- 
mandment is  frequently  recognized  and  enforced.  Our  blessed 
Lord  liimseK  was  subject  to  his  parents.  (Luke  ii.  51.)  The 
Apostle  commands  children  to  obey  their  parents  in  the  Lord 
(Eph.  vi.  1),  and  to  obey  them  in  all  things,  for  this  is  well  pleas- 
ing unto  the  Lord.  (Col.  iii.  20.)  This  obedience  is  to  be  not 
only  religious,  but  specifically  Christian,  as  the  word  Lord,  in 
Ephesians  vi.  1,  refers  to  Christ.  This  is  plain  because  in  ch.  v.  21, 
the  Apostle  says  that  these  specific  duties  are  to  be  performed 
"  in  the  fear  of  Christ ;  "  ^  because  the  Lord  is  always  in  the  New 
Testament  to  be  understood  of  Christ,  unless  the  context  forbids ; 
and  because  especially  throughout  these  chapters  Lord  and  Christ 
are  interchanged,  so  that  it  is  evident  that  both  words  refer  to 
the  same  person.  Children  are  required  to  obey  their  parents  in 
the  Lord,  i.  e.,  as  a  religious  duty,  as  part  of  the  obedience  due 
to  the  Lord.  They  are  to  obey  them  "  in  all  things  ;  "  ^'.  e.,  in 
all  things  falling  within  the  sphere  of  parental  authority.  God 
has  never  committed  unlimited  power  to  the  hands  of  men.  The 
limitations  of  parental  authority  are  determined  partly  by  the 
nature  of  the  relation,  partly  by  the  Scriptures,  and  partly  by 
the  state  of  society  or  the  law  of  the  land.  The  nature  of  the 
relation  supposes  that  parents  are  to  be  obeyed  as  parents,  out  of 
gratitude  and  love ;  and  that  their  will  is  to  be  consvilted  and  re- 
spected even  where  their  decisions  are  not  final.  They  are  not 
to  be  obeyed  as  magistrates,  as  though  they  were  invested  with 
the  power  to  make  or  to  administer  civil  laws  ;  nor  yet  as  proph- 
ets or  priests.  They  are  not  lords  of  the  conscience.  They  can- 
not control  our  faith  or  determine  for  us  questions  of  duty  so  as 
to  exonerate  us  from  personal  obligation.  Being  a  service  of  love, 
it  does  not  admit  of  strictly  defined  boundaries.  Children  are  to 
conform  to  the  wishes  and  to  be  controlled  by  the  judgments  of 
their  parents,  in  all  cases  where  such  submission  does  not  conflict 
with  higher  obligations. 

1  The  common  text  indeed  m  Ephesians  v.  21,  has  ©eoO,  but  the  authority  of  the  MSS. 
if  so  decidedly  in  favour  of  Xpia-roD  that  that  reading  is  almost  universally  adopted  by 
editors  and  commentators. 


852  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. -the   law. 

The  Scriptural  rule  is  simple  and  comprehensive.  It  does  not 
go  into  unnecessary  details.  It  prescribes  the  general  rule  of 
obedience.  The  exceptions  to  that  rule  must  be  such  as  justify 
themselves  to  a  divinely  enlightened  conscience,  ^.  e.,  a  conscience 
enlightened  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God.  The  general  prin- 
ciple given  in  the  Bible  in  all  such  cases  is,  "  It  is  right  to  obey 
God  rather  than  man." 

The  Promise. 

This  commandment  has  a  special  promise  attached  to  it.  This 
promise  has  a  theocratical  form  as  it  stands  in  the  decalogue, 
"  That  thy  days  may  be  long  upon  the  land  which  the  LoRD  thy 
God  giveth  thee."  The  Apostle,  in  Ephesians  vi.  3,  by  leaving 
out  the  last  clause  generalizes  it,  so  that  it  applies  to  no  one  land 
or  people,  but  to  obedient  children  everywhere.  The  promise  an- 
nounces the  general  purpose  of  God  and  a  general  principle  of  his 
providential  government.  "  The  hand  of  the  diligent  maketh 
rich,"  that  is  the  general  rule,  which  is  not  invalidated  if  here 
and  there  a  diligent  man  rema,ins  poor.  It  is  well  with  obedient 
children  ;  they  prosper  in  the  world.  Such  is  the  fact,  and  such 
is  the  divine  promise.  The  family  being  the  corner-stone  of  so- 
cial order  and  prosperity,  it  follows  that  those  families  are  blessed 
in  which  God's  plan  and  purpose  are  most  fully  carried  out  and 
realized. 

Parental  Duties. 

As  children  are  bound  to  honour  and  obey  their  parents,  so 
parents  have  duties  no  less  important  in  reference  to  their  chil- 
dren. These  duties  are  summarily  expressed  by  the  Apostle  in 
Ephesians  vi.  4,  first  in  a  negative,  and  then  in  a  positive  form. 
"  Ye  fathers  provoke  not  your  children  to  wi'ath."  This  is  what 
they  are  not  to  do.  They  are  not  to  excite  the  bad  passions  of 
their  children  by  anger,  severity,  injustice,  partiality,  or  any  un- 
due exercise  of  authority.  This  is  a  great  evil.  It  is  sowing 
tares  instead  of  wheat  in  a  fruitful  soil.  The  positive  part  of 
parental  duty  is  expressed  by  the  comprehensive  direction,  "  but 
bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  (TraiSeto.)  and  admonition  (vuvOiaia) 
of  the  Lord."  Tlie  former  of  these  words  is  comprehensive,  the 
latter  specific.  The  one  expresses  the  whole  process  of  education 
or  training  ;  the  other  the  special  duty  of  warning  and  correction. 
The  "  nurture  and  admonition  "is  to  be  Christian  ;  that  is,  not 
only  such  as  Christ  approves  and  enjoins,  but  which  is  truly  his, 


§9.J  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  353 

{.  e.,  that  whicli  He  exercises  by  his  word  and  Spirit  through  the 
parent  as  his  organ.  "  Christ  is  represented  as  exercising  this 
nurture  and  admonition,  in  so  far  as  He  by  his  Spirit  influences 
and  controls'  the  parent."^  According  to  the  Apostle,  this  re- 
hgious  or  Christian  element  is  essential  in  the  education  of  the 
young.  Man  has  a  religious  as  well  as  an  intellectual  nature. 
To  neglect  the  former  would  be  as  unreasonable  as  to  neglect  the 
latter  and  make  all  education  a  matter  of  mere  physical  training. 
We  must  act  in  accordance  with  facts.  It  is  a  fact  that  men 
have  a  moral  and  religious  nature.  It  is  a  fact  that  if  their  moral 
and  religious  feelings  are  enlightened  and  jDroperly  developed,  they 
become  upright,  useful,  and  happy  ;  on  the  other  hand,  if  these 
elements  of  their  nature  are  uncultivated  or  perverted,  they  be- 
come degraded,  miserable,  and  wicked.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  de- 
partment of  our  nature  as  much  needs  right  culture  as  the  intel- 
lectual or  the  physical.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  culture  can  be 
effected  only  by  the  truth  instilled  into  the  mind  and  impressed 
upon  the  conscience.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  truth,  as  all  Christians 
believe,  is  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  a  fact,  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  is  the  only 
Saviour  of  men,  and  that  it  is  by  faith  in  Him  and  by  obedience 
to  Him,  men  are  delivered  from  the  dominion  of  sin  ;  and  there- 
fore it  is  a  fact  that  unless  children  are  brought  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  I^ord,  they,  and  the  society  which  they  con- 
stitute or  control,  will  go  to  destruction.  Consequently,  when 
a  state  resolves  that  religious  instruction  shall  be  banished  from 
the  schools  and  other  literary  institutions,  it  virtually  resolves  on 
self-destruction.  It  may  indeed  be  said  that  such  a  resolution 
does  not  imply  that  religious  education  is  to  be  neglected.  It 
simply  declares  that  it  is  not  a  function  of  the  state,  that  it  is  a 
duty  which  belongs  to  the  family  and  to  the  Clim'ch.  This  is 
plausible,  but  it  is  fallacious. 

1.  All  the  education  received  by  a  large  portion  of  the  people 
of  any  country,  is  received  in  its  primary  schools.  If  that  be  ir- 
religious (in  the  negative  sense,  if  in  this  case  there  be  such  a 
sense),  their  whole  training  is  irreligious. 

2.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Christian  people  of  a  coun- 
try are  the  Church  of  that  country.  The  Christians  of  Antioch 
were  the  Cluirch  of  Antioch,  and  the  Christians  of  Rome  were  the 
Church  of  Rome.  In  like  manner  the  Christians  in  the  United 
States  are  the  Church  in  the  United  States.     As  therefore  the 

1  Meyer,  Commentary  in  loco. 
VOL.  in.  23 


354  PART   III.     Ch.   XIX.— the   law. 

schools  belong  to  the  people,  as  they  are  their  organs  for  the 
education  of  their  children  ;  if  the  people  be  Christians,  the  schools 
of  right  must  be  Christian.  Any  law  which  declares  that  they 
shall  not  be  so,  is  tyrannical.  It  may  be  said  that  the  law  does 
not  forbid  Christians  having  religious  schools,  it  only  says  that 
such  schools  shall  not  be  supported  by  the  public  money.  But 
the  people  are  the  public  ;  and  if  the  people  be  Christians,  Chris- 
tians are  the  public.  The  meaning  of  such  a  law,  therefore, 
really  is,  that  Christians  shall  not  use  their  own  money  for  the 
support  of  their  own  schools. 

3.  If  Christian  men  therefore  constitute  a  nation,  a  state,  a 
county,  a  town,  or  a  village,  they  have  the  right,  with  which  no 
civil  power  can  justly  interfere,  of  having  Christian  schools.  If 
any  who  are  not  Christians  choose  to  frequent  such  schools,  they 
should  not  be  required  to  attend  upon  the  religious  instruction. 
They  can  derive  all  the  benefit  they  seek,  although  they  omit 
attendance  on  what  is  designed  for  the  children  of  Chiistian 
parents. 

4.  It  is  true  that  Church  and  State  are  not  miited  in  this  coun- 
try as  they  ever  have  been  in  Europe.  It  is  conceded  that  this 
separation  is  wise.  But  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  that  conces- 
sion that  the  state  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion  ;  that  it  must 
act  as  though  there  were  no  Christ  and  no  God.  It  has  already 
been  remarked  that  this  is  as  impossible  as  it  would  be  for  the 
state  to  ignore  the  moral  law.  It  may  be  admitted  that  Church 
and  State  are,  in  this  country,  as  distinct  as  the  Church  and  a 
banking  company.  But  a  banking  company,  if  composed  of 
Christians,  must  conduct  its  business  according  to  Christian  prin- 
ciples, so  far  as  those  principles  apply  to  banking  operations.  So 
a  nation,  or  a  state,  composed  of  Christians,  must  be  governed  by 
Christianity,  so  far  as  its  spirit  and  precepts  aj^ply  to  matters  of 
civil  government.  If  therefore  the  state  assumes  that  the  edu- 
cation of  the  people  is  one  of  its  functions,  it  is  bound  in  a 
Christian  country,  —  a  country  in  which  ninety  hundredths  of  the 
population  consist  of  Christians, —  to  conduct  the  schools  on  Chris- 
tian principles,  otherwise  it  tramples  on  the  most  sacred  rights  of 
the  people.  This  the  people  never  will  submit  to,  until  they  lose 
all  interest  in  their  religion.  No  one  doubts  that  the  Bible  does 
require  that  education  should  be  religiously  conducted.  "  These 
words  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  shall  be  in  thine  heart : 
and  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children,  and  shalt 
talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thin  ^  house,  and  when  thou  walk- 


1 


§9.]  THE  FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  355 

est  by  the  way,  and  wlien  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest 
up."  (Deut.  vi.  6,  7.  and  xi.  19.)  "  He  estabhshed  a  testimony 
in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  hiw  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded 
our  fathers,  that  they  should  make  them  kno^vn  to  their  chil- 
dren ;  that  the  generation  to  come  might  know  them,  even  the 
children  which  should  be  born,  who  should  arise  and  declare  them 
to  their  children  ;  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God,  and  not 
forget  the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments."  (Ps. 
Ixxviii.  5,  6,  7.)  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go  ; 
and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."  (Prov.  xxii.  6.) 
Fathers  bring  up  your  children  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord."  (Eph.  vi.  4.)  These  are  not  ceremonial  or  obsolete 
laws.  They  bind  the  consciences  of  men  just  as  much  as  the  com- 
mand, "  Thou  shalt  not  steal."  If  parents  themselves  conduct  the 
education  of  their  children,  these  are  the  principles  upon  which  it 
must  be  conducted.  If  they  commit  that  work  to  teachers,  they 
are  bound,  by  the  law  of  God,  to  see  that  the  teachers  regard  these 
divine  prescriptions ;  if  they  commit  the  work  to  the  state,  they 
are  under  equally  sacred  obligation  to  see  that  the  state  does  not 
violate  them.     This  is  an  obligation  which  they  cannot  escape. 

5.  When  the  Sunday  laws  were  under  discussion,  on  a  previous 
page,  it  was  urged  that  it  would  be  unreasonable  and  unjust  for 
a  man  who  joined  a  business  association  of  moral  men,  to  insist 
that  the  affairs  of  the  association  should  be  conducted  on  im- 
moral principles  ;  if  he  joined  a  company  of  Christian  manufac- 
turers, it  would  be  unjust  for  him  to  require  that  they  should 
violate  the  laws  of  Christianity.  So  if  a  Christian  should  go  to 
Turkey,  it  would  be  preposterous  for  him  to  insist  that  the  Ko- 
ran should  be  banished  from  the  public  schools.  No  less  prepos- 
terous is  it  for  any  man  to  demand  that  Christians  in  this  coun- 
try should  renounce  their  religion.  Christianity  requires  that 
education  in  all  its  departments  should  be  conducted  religiously. 
If  any  set  of  men  should  found  a  school  or  a  university  from  which 
all  religious  instruction  should  be  banished,  the  law  of  the  land 
would  doubtless  permit  them  to  do  so.  But  for  the  law  to  for- 
bid that  the  religion  of  the  people  should  be  taught  in  schools 
sustained  by  the  money  of  the  people,  ought  not  to  be  sub- 
mitted to. 

6.  The  banishment  of  religious  influence  from  our  schools  is 
impossible.  If  a  man  is  not  religious,  he  is  irreligious ;  if  he  is 
not  a  behever,  he  is  an  unbeliever.  This  is  as  true  of  organiza- 
tions and  institutions,  as  it  is  of  individuals.     Byron  uttered  a 


356  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. -.the   law. 

profound  truth  when  he  put  into  the  mouth  of  Satan  the  words 
"  He  that  does  not  bow  to  God,  has  bowed  to  me."  If  you 
banisli  light,  you  are  in  darkness.  If  you  banish  Christianity 
from  the  schools,  you  thereby  render  them  infidel.  If  a  child  is 
brought  up  in  ignorance  of  God,  he  becomes  an  atheist.  If 
never  taught  the  moral  law,  his  moral  nature  is  as  undeveloped 
as  that  of  a  pagan.  This  controversy,  therefore,  is  a  controversy 
between  Christianity  and  infidelity ;  between  light  and  dark- 
ness ;  between  Christ  and  Belial.* 

It  is  admitted  that  this  subject  is  encumbered  with  practical 
difficulties  where  the  jDeople  of  a  country  differ  widely  in  their 
religious  convictions.  In  such  cases  it  would  be  far  better  to 
refer  the  matter  to  the  people  of  each  school  district,  than  by  a 
general  law  to  prohibit  all  religious  instruction  from  the  pubhc 
schools.  This  would,  in  fact,  be  to  make  them  infidel,  in  defer- 
ence to  a  numerically  insignificant  minority  of  the  people.  It  is 
constantly  said  that  the  state,  if  it  provides  for  anything  more 
than  secular  education,  is  travelling  out  of  its  sphere  ;  that  civil 
government  is  no  more  organized  to  teach  religion  than  a  fire 
company  is.  This  latter  assertion  may  be  admitted  so  far  as 
this,  —  that  the  same  rule  applies  to  both  cases.  That  is,  all 
individual  men,  and  all  associations  of  men,  are  bound  to  act 
according  to  the  principles  of  morality  and  religion,  so  far  as 
those  principles  are  applicable  to  the  work  which  they  have  to 
do.  Men  cannot  lawfully  cheat  in  banking,  nor  can  they  right- 
fully conduct  their  business  on  the  Lord's  Day.  In  like  manner 
if  God  requires  that  education  should  be  conducted  religiously, 
the  state  has  no  more  right  to  banish  religion  from  its  schools, 
than  it  has  to  violate  the  moral  law.  The  whole  thing  comes  to 
this :  Christians  are  bound  by  the  express  command  of  God, 
as  well  as  by  a  regard  to  the  salvation  of  their  children  and 
to  the  best  interests  of  society,  to  see  to  it  that  their  cliil- 
dren  are  brought  up  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord  ;  "  this  they  are  bound  to  do  ;  through  the  state  if  they 
can  ;  without  it,  if  they  must. 

Obedience  due  to  Civil  Magistrates.  J 

If  the  fifth  commandment  enjoins  as  a  general  principle,  re- 
spect and  obedience  to  our  superiors,  it  includes  our  obligations 

1  So  little  is  this  matter  understood,  that  one  of  the  most  respectable  and  influential  jour- 
nals in  the  land,  recently  announced  the  fact  that  one  of  the  cantons  of  Switzerland  had 
prohibited  all  religious  instruction  in  the  schools,  as  a  proof  that  "the  world  was  getting 
tired  of  sacerdotalism."     Thus  religion  is  reduced  to  sacerdotalism  or  priestcraft. 


§9.]  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  357 

to  civil  rulers ;  we  are  commanded  to  "  Submit  ourselves  to 
every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake :  whether  it  be  to 
the  king  as  supreme ;  or  unto  governors,  as  unto  them  that  are 
sent  by  him  for  the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise 
of  them  that  do  well.  For  so  is  the  will  of  God."  (1  Peter  ii. 
lo-lo.)  The  whole  theory  of  civil  government  and  the  duty  of 
citizens  to  their  rulers,  are  comprehensively  stated  by  the  Apos- 
tle in  Romans  xiii.  1—5.  It  is  there  taught,  (1.)  That  all 
authority  is  of  God.  (2.)  That  civil  magistrates  are  ordained  of 
God.  (3.)  That  resistance  to  them,  is  resistance  to  Him  ;  they 
are  ministers  exercising  his  authority  among  men.  (4.)  That 
obedience  to  them  must  be  rendered  as  a  matter  of  conscience, 
as  a  part  of  our  obedience  to  God. 

From  this  it  appears,  —  First,  that  civil  government  is  a  divine 
ordinance.  It  is  not  merely  an  optional  human  institution ; 
something  which  men  are  free  to  have  or  not  to  have,  as  they 
see  fit.  It  is  not  founded  on  any  social  compact ;  it  is  something 
which  God  commands.  The  Bible,  however,  does  not  teach  that 
there  is  any  one  form  of  civil  government  which  is  always  and 
everywhere  obligatory.  The  form  of  government  is  determined 
by  the  providence  of  God  and  the  will  of  the  people.  It  changes 
as  the  state  of  society  changes.  Much  less  is  it  implied  in  the 
proposition  that  government  is  a  divine  institution,  that  God 
designates  the  persons  who  are  to  exercise  the  various  functions 
of  the  government ;  or  the  mode  of  their  appointment ;  or  the 
extent  of  their  powers. 

Secondly,  it  is  included  in  the  Apostle's  doctrine,  that  magis- 
trates derive  their  authority  from  God  ;  they  are  his  ministers  ; 
they  represent  Him.  In  a  certain  sense  they  represent  the  peo- 
ple, as  they  may  be  chosen  by  them  to  be  the  depositaries  of 
this  divinely  delegated  authority  ;  but  the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  by  God  ;  it  is  his  will  that  they  should  be,  and  that 
they  should  be  clothed  with  authority. 

Thirdly,  from  this  it  follows  that  obedience  to  magistrates  and 
to  the  laws  of  the  land,  is  a  religious  duty.  We  are  to  submit 
to  "  every  ordinance  of  man,"  for  the  Lord's  sake,  out  of  our 
regard  to  Him,  as  St.  Peter  expresses  it ;  or  for  "  conscience 
sake,"  as  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  St.  Paul.  We  are 
bound  to  obey  magistrates  not  merely  because  we  have  promised 
to  do  so  ;  or  because  we  have  appointed  them  ;  or  because  they 
are  wise  or  good ;  but  because  such  is  the  will  of  God.  In  like 
manner  the  laws  of  the  land  are  to  be  observed,  not  because  we 


358  PART  in.     Cn.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

approve  of  tliem,  but  because  God  lias  enjoined  such  obedience. 
This  is  a  matter  of  great  importance ;  it  is  the  only  stable  foun- 
dation of  ciyil  government  and  of  social  order.  There  is  a  great 
difference  between  obedience  to  men  and  obedience  to  God ;  be- 
tween lying  to  men  and  lying  to  God  ;  and  between  resistance  to 
men  and  resistance  to  God.  This  principle  runs  through  the 
Bible,  which  teaches  that  all  authority  is  of  God,  and  therefore 
all  obedience  to  those  in  authority  is  part  of  our  obedience  to 
God.  This  applies  not  only  to  the  case  of  citizens  and  rulers, 
but  also  to  parents  and  children,  husbands  and  wives,  and  even 
masters  and  slaves.  In  all  these  relations  we  are  to  act  not  as 
the  servants  of  men,  but  as  the  servants  of  God.  This  gives  to 
authority  by  whomsoever  exercised  a  divine  sanction  ;  it  gives  it 
power  over  the  conscience  ;  and  it  elevates  even  menial  service 
into  an  element  of  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  Noj 
man  can  have  a  ser%dle  spirit  who  serves  God  in  rendering  obe- 
dience to  men.  None  but  a  law-abiding  people  can  be  free  or] 
prosperous;  and  no  people  can  be  permanently  law-abiding  who 
do  not  truly  believe  that  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God.  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth  the  power  (those  in  au- 
thority), resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God :  and  they  that  resist 
shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation  (Kpi/j.a)."  That  is,  God] 
will  punish  them. 

Fourthly,  another  principle  included  in  the  Apostle's  doctrine] 
is,  that  obedience  is  due  to  every  de  facto  government,  whatever 
its  origin  or  character.     His  directions  were  written  under  the 
reign  of  Nero,  and  enjoined  obedience  to  him.     The  early  Chris- 
tians were  not  called  to  examine  the  credentials  of  their  actual] 
rulers,  every  time  the  praetorian  guard  chose  to  depose  one  em-| 
peror  and  install  another.     The  people  of  England  were  not  free 
from  their  obligation  to  "William  and  Mary  when  once  established 
on  the  throne,  because  they  might  think  that  James  II.  was  enti- 
tled to  the  crown.    We  are  to  obey  "  the  powers  that  be."    They] 
are  in  authority  by  the  will  of  God,  which  is  revealed  by  facts,  as 
clearly  as  by  words.    It  is  by  Him  that  "  kings  reign  and  princes 
decree  justice."  "  He  raiseth  up  one,  and  putteth  down  another."' 

Fifthly,  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  no  human  authority 
is  intended  to  be  unlimited.  Such  limitation  may  not  be  expressed, 
but  it  is  always  implied.  The  command  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill," 
is  unlimited  in  form,  yet  the  Scriptures  recognize  that  homicide 
may  in  some  cases  be  not  only  justifiable  but  obhgatory.  The 
principles  which  Umit  the  authority  of  civil  government  and  of 


§9]  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  359 

its  agents  are  simple  and  obvious.  The  first  is  that  governments 
and  magistrates  have  authority  only  ^vithin  their  legitimate 
spheres.  As  civil  government  is  instituted  for  the  protection  of 
life  and  property,  for  the  preservation  of  order,  for  the  punish- 
ment of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  those  who  do  well,  it  has 
to  do  only  with  the  conduct,  or  external  acts  of  men.  It  cannot 
concern  itself  with  their  opinions,  whether  scientific,  philosophical, 
or  religious.  An  act  of  Parliament  or  of  Congress,  that  English- 
men or  Americans  should  be  materialists  or  idealists,  would  be  an 
absurdity  and  a  nullity.  The  magistrate  cannot  enter  our  families 
and  assume  parental  authority,  or  our  churches  and  teach  as  a 
minister.  A  justice  of  the  peace  cannot  assume  the  prerogatives 
of  a  governor  of  a  state  or  of  a  president  of  the  United  States. 
Out  of  his  legitimate  sphere  a  magistrate  ceases  to  be  a  magis- 
trate. A  second  limitation  is  no  less  plain.  No  human  authority 
can  make  it  obligatory  on  a  man  to  disobey  God.  If  all  power 
is  from  God,  it  cannot  be  legitimate  when  used  against  God.  This 
is  self-evident.  The  Apostles  when  forbidden  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, refused  to  obey.  When  Daniel  refused  to  bow  down  to  the 
image  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  made  ;  when  the  early  Chris- 
tians refused  to  worship  idols  ;  and  when  the  Protestant  martyrs 
refused  to  profess  the  errors  of  the  Romish  Church,  they  all  com- 
mended themselves  to  God,  and  secured  the  reverence  of  all  good 
men.  On  this  point  there  can  be  no  dispute.  It  is  important 
that  this  principle  should  be  not  only  recognized,  but  also  publicly 
avowed.  The  sanctity  of  law,  and  the  stability  of  human  govern- 
ments, depend  on  the  sanction  of  God.  Unless  they  repose  on 
Him,  they  rest  on  nothing.  They  have  his  sanction  only  when 
they  act  according  to  his  vsdll ;  that  is  in  accordance  with  the 
design  of  their  appointment  and  in  harmony  with  the  moral  law. 

Sixthly,  another  general  principle  is  that  the  question.  When 
the  civil  government  may  be,  and  ought  to  be  disobeyed,  is  one 
which  every  man  must  decide  for  himself.  It  is  a  matter  of  pri- 
vate judgment.  Every  man  must  answer  for  himself  to  God,  and 
therefore,  every  man  must  judge  for  himself,  whether  a  given  act 
is  sinful  or  not.  Daniel  judged  for  himself.  So  did  Shadrach,  Me- 
shech,  and  Abednego.  So  did  the  Apostles,  and  so  did  the  martyrs. 

An  unconstitutional  law  or  commandment  is  a  nullity  ;  no  man 
sins  in  disregarding  it.  He  disobeys,  however,  at  his  peril.  If 
his  judgment  is  right,  he  is  free.  If  it  be  Avrong,  in  the  view  of 
the  proper  tribunal,  he  must  suffer  the  penalty.  There  is  an  ob- 
vious distinction  to  be  made  between  disobedience  and  resistance. 


360  PART   m.     Cii.   XIX. -THE  LAW. 

A  man  is  bound  to  disobey  a  law,  or  a  command,  wliicb  requiria 
him  to  sin,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  at  liberty  to  resist 
its  execution.  The  Apostles  refused  to  obey  the  Je-\vish  author- 
ities :  but  they  submitted  to  the  penalty  inflicted.  So  the  Chris- 
tian martyrs  disobeyed  the  laws  requiring  them  to  worship  idols, 
but  they  made  no  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  The 
Quakers  disobey  the  law  requiring  military  service,  but  quietly 
submit  to  the  penalty.  This  is  obviously  right.  The  right  of 
resistance  is  in  the  community.  It  is  the  right  of  revolution,  which 
God  sanctions,  and  which  good  men  in  past  ages  have  exercised  to 
the  salvation  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  When  a  government 
fails  to  answer  the  purpose  for  which  God  ordained  it,  the  people 
have  a  right  to  change  it.  A  father,  if  he  shamefully  abuses  his 
power,  may  rightfully  be  deprived  of  authority  over  his  children.^ 

Obedience  to  the  Church. 

The  Apostle  commands  Christians  "  Obey  them  that  have  the 
rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves :  for  they  watch  for  your 
souls."  "  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who 
have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God."  (Heb.  xiii.  17,  7.) 
Our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  that  if  an  offending  brother  resisted 
other  means  to  bring  him  to  repentance,  his  offence  must  be  told 
to  the  Church ;  and  that  if  he  neglected  to  hear  the  Church,  he 
was  to  be  regarded  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican.  (Matt, 
xviii.  17.) 

The  principles  which  regulate  our  obedience  to  the  Church,  are 
very  much  the  same  as  those  which  concern  our  relation  to  the 
State,  — 

1.  The  visible  Church  is  a  divine  institution.  In  one  sense 
indeed  it  is  a  voluntary  society,  in  so  far  as  that  no  man  can  be 
coerced  to  join  it.  If  he  joins  it  at  all,  it  must  be  of  his  own 
free  will.  Nevertheless  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  visible 
Church  as  an  organized  body  should  exist ;  and  every  man  who 
hears  the  Gospel,  is  bound  to  enroll  himself  among  its  members 
and  to  submit  to  its  authority. 

2.  All  Church  power  is  of  God,  and  all  legitimate  Church 
officers  are  his  ministers.  They  act  in  his  name  and  b}^  his  au- 
thority. Resistance  to  them,  therefore,  is  resistance  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  God. 

1  All  these  subjects  are  fully  expoundefl  in  the  great  works  on  Jurisprudence  and  Civil 
Polity.  P'or  a  popular  discussion  of  them,  reference  may  be  made  to,  Dkcusdons  of  Church 
Pnnciples.  By  William  Cunninjj;ham,  1).  D.,  Principal  of  New  College,  Eilinbiirgh.  Edin- 
burgh: T.  and  T.  Clark,  180;$,  particularly  chapters  vi.  and  vii.  See  also  the  Princeton 
Revitw  for  January,  1851,  article  "  Civil  Government." 


§9.]  THE   FIFTH   COMMANDMENT.  861 

8.  All  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  and  all  the  powers  of  its 
officers  are  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God. 

4.  The  prerogatives  of  the  Church  are,  first,  to  teach.  Its 
great  commission  is  to  teach  all  nations.  It  is  to  teach  what  God 
has  revealed  in  his  word  as  to  what  men  are  to  believe  and  what 
they  are  to  do.  Beyond  the  limits  of  the  revelation  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  the  Church  has  no  more  authority  to  teach  than 
any  other  association  among  men.  Secondly,  the  Church  has  the 
right  and  duty  to  order  and  conduct  public  Avorship,  to  administer 
the  sacraments,  to  select  and  ordain  its  own  officers,  and  to  do 
whatever  else  is  necessary  for  its  own  perpetuity  and  extension. 
Thirdly,  it  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Church  to  exercise  discipline 
over  its  own  members,  and  to  receive  or  to  reject  them  as  the  case 
may  be. 

5.  As  to  the  external  organization  of  the  Church  all  Christians 
agree  that  there  are  certain  rules  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God 
which  are  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation.  All  Christian 
churches,  however,  have  acted  on  the  assumption,  that  beyond 
these  prescribed  rules,  the  Church  has  a  certain  discretion  to  mod- 
ify its  organization  and  its  organs  to  suit  varying  emergencies. 

6.  The  visible  Church  being  organized  for  a  definite  purpose, 
its  power  being  derived  from  God,  and  its  prerogatives  being  all 
laid  down  in  the  Scriptures,  it  follows  not  only  that  its  powers  are 
limited  Avithin  the  bounds  thus  prescribed,  but  also  that  the  ques- 
tion, whether  its  decisions  and  injunctions  are  to  be  obeyed,  is  to 
be  determined  by  every  one  concerned,  on  his  own  responsibility. 
If  the  decision  is  within  the  limits  to  which  God  has  confined  the 
action  of  the  Church,  and  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  it  is 
to  be  obeyed.  If  it  transcends  those  limits,  or  is  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God,  it  is  to  be  disregarded.  If  therefore  the  Church 
through  any  of  its  organs  should  assume  to  decide  questions  of 
pure  science,  or  of  political  economy,  or  of  civil  law,  such  de- 
cisions would  amount  to  nothing.  Or,  if  it  should  declare  that  to 
be  true  which  the  Scriptures  pronounce  to  be  false ;  or  that  to 
be  false  which  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  true,  such  judgment 
would  bind  no  man's  conscience.  And  in  like  manner,  should  the 
Church  declare  any  thing  to  be  sinful  which  the  word  of  God 
teaches  to  be  right  or  indifferent ;  or  that  to  be  right  and  obliga- 
tory which  that  word  pronounces  to  be  evil,  then  again  its  teach- 
ing is  void  of  all  authority.  All  this  is  included  in  the  principle 
that  we  must  obey  God  rather  than  man  ;  and  that  as  to  when 
obedience  to  man  conflicts  with  our  allegiance  to  God,  every  man 


362  PART  in.     Cii.   XTX.  — THE   LAW. 

from  the  nature  of  the  case  must  judge  for  himself.  No  man  can 
estimate  the  importance  of  these  simple  principles.  It  was  by 
disregarding  them  that  the  Church  came  gradually  to  deny  the 
right  of  private  judgment ;  to  subordinate  the  Scriptures  to  its 
decisions  ;  and  to  put  itself  in  the  place  of  God.  In  this  way  it 
has  imposed  unscriptural  doctrines  upon  the  faith  of  men  ;  made 
multitudes  of  things  to  be  obligatory  which  God  never  enjoined ; 
and  declared  the  greatest  sins,  such  as  treason,  persecution,  and 
massacre  to  be  Christian  duties. 

While,  therefore,  the  duty  of  obedience  to  our  superiors,  and 
submission  to  law,  as  enjoined  in  the  fifth  commandment,  is  the 
source  of  all  order  in  the  family,  the  Church,  and  the  State  ;  the 
limitation  of  this  duty  by  our  higher  obligation  to  God,  is  the 
foundation  of  all  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

§  10,   The  Sixth  Commandment. 
Its  Design. 

This  commandment,  as  expounded  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  v.  21, 
■22),  forbids  malice  in  all  its  degrees  and  in  all  its  manifestations. 
The  Bible  recognizes  the  distinction  between  anger  and  malice. 
The  former  is  on  due  occasion  allowable  ;  the  other  is  in  its  nature, 
and  therefore  always,  evil.  The  one  is  a  natural  or  constitutional 
emotion  arising  out  of  the  experience  or  perception  of  wrong, 
and  includes  not  only  disapprobation  but  also  indignation,  and  a 
desire  in  some  way  to  redress  or  punish  the  wrong  inflicted.  The 
other  includes  hatred  and  the  desire  to  inflict  evil  to  gratify  that 
evil  passion.  Our  Lord  is  said  to  have  been  angry  ;  but  in  Him 
there  was  no  malice  or  resentment.  He  was  the  Lamb  of  God  ; 
when  He  was  reviled.  He  reviled  not  again  ;  when  He  suffered, 
He  threatened  not ;  He  prayed  for  his  enemies  even  on  the  cross. 

In  the  several  commandments  of  the  decalogue,  the  highest 
manifestation  of  any  evil  is  selected  for  prohibition,  with  the 
intention  of  including  all  lesser  forms  of  the  same  evil.  In  for- 
bidding murder,  all  degrees  and  manifestations  of  malicious  feel- 
ing are  forbidden.  The  Bible  assigns  special  value  to  the  life  of 
man,  first,  because  he  was  created  in  the  image  of  God.  He  is 
not  only  like  God  in  the  essential  elements  of  his  nature,  but  he 
is  also  God's  representative  on  earth.  An  indignity  or  injury 
inflicted  on  him,  is  an  act  of  irreverence  toward  God.  And  sec- 
ondly, all  men  are  brethren.  They  are  of  one  blood  ;  children  of 
a  common  father.  On  these  grounds  we  are  bound  to  love  and 
respect  all  men  as  men  ;  and  to  do  all  we  can  not  only  to  protect 


§  10.]  THE    SIXTH   COMMANDMENT.  363 

their  lives  but  also  to  promote  their  well-being.  Murder,  there- 
fore, is  the  highest  crime  which  a  man  can  commit  against  a  fel- 
low-man. 

Capital  Punishment. 

As  the  sixth  commandment  forbids  malicious  homicide,  it  is 
plain  that  the  infliction  of  capital  punishment  is  not  included  in 
the  prohibition.  Such  punishment  is  not  inflicted  to  gratify  re- 
venge, but  to  satisfy  justice  and  for  the  preservation  of  society. 
As  these  are  legitimate  and  most  important  ends,  it  follows  that 
the  capital  punishment  of  murder  is  also  legitimate.  Such  punish- 
ment, in  the  case  of  murder,  is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  obliga- 
tory. 

1.  Because  it  is  expressly  declared  in  the  Bible,  "  Whoso 
sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  :  for  in 
the  image  of  God  made  he  man."  (Gen.  ix.  6.)  That  this  is  of 
perpetual  obligation  is  clear,  because  it  was  given  to  Noah,  the 
second  head  of  the  human  race.  It  was,  therefore,  not  intended 
for  any  particular  age  or  nation.  It  is  the  announcement  of 
a  general  principle  of  justice  ;  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God. 
Moreover  the  reason  assigned  for  the  law  is  a  permanent  reason. 
Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  ;  and,  therefore,  whoso 
sheds  his  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed.  This  reason  has 
as  much  force  at  one  time  or  place  as  at  any  other.  Rosenmiiller's 
comment  on  this  clause  is,  "  Cum  homo  ad  Dei  imaginem  sit  f actus, 
aequum  est,  ut,  qui  Dei  imaginem  violavit  et  destruxit,  occidatur, 
cum  Dei  imagini  injuriam  faciens,  ipsum  Deum,  illius  auctorem, 
petierit."  ^  This  is  a  very  solemn  consideration,  and  one  of  wide 
application.  It  applies  not  only  to  murder  and  other  injuries  in- 
flicted on  the  persons  of  men,  but  also  to  anything  which  tends  to 
degrade  or  to  defile  them.  The  Apostle  applies  it  even  to  evil 
words,  or  the  suggestion  of  corrupt  thoughts.  If  it  is  an  outrage 
to  defile  the  statue  or  portrait  of  a  great  and  good  man,  or  of  a 
father  or  mother,  how  much  greater  is  the  outrage  when  we  defile 
the  imperishable  image  of  God  impressed  on  the  immortal  soul 
of  man.  We  find  the  injunction,  that  the  murderer  should  sure- 
ly be  put  to  death,  repeated  over  and  over  in  the  Mosaic  law. 
(Ex.  xxi.  12,  14 ;  Lev.  xxiv.  17  ;  Num.  xxxv.  21  ;  Dent.  xix. 
11,  18.) 

There  are  clear  recognitions  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  con- 
tinued obligation  of  the  divine  law  that  murder  should  be  pun- 
ished with  death.     In  Romans  xiii.  4,  the  Apostle  says  that  the 

1  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum,  Leipzig,  1795. 


S64  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. —  the   law. 

magistrate  "bearetli  not  the  sword  in  vain."  The  sword  was 
worn  as  the  symbol  of  the  power  of  capital  punishment.  Even 
by  profane  -writers,  says  Meyer,  "  bearing  the  sword  "  by  a  mag- 
istrate was  the  emblem  of  the  power  over  life  and  death.  The 
same  Apostle  said  (Acts  xxv.  11)  :  "  If  I  be  an  offender,  or  have 
committed  anything  worthy  of  death,  I  refuse  not  to  die ;  " 
which  clearly  imj^lies  that,  in  his  judgment,  there  were  offences, 
for  which  the  appropriate  penalty  is  death, 

2.  Besides  these  arguments  from  Scripture,  there  are  others 
drawn  from  natural  justice.  It  is  a  dictate  of  our  moral  nature 
that  crime  should  be  punished ;  that  there  should  be  a  just  pro- 
portion between  the  offence  and  the  penalty  ;  and  that  death,  the 
highest  penalty,  was  the  proper  punishment  for  the  greatest  of  all 
crimes.  That  such  is  the  instinctive  judgment  of  men  is  proved 
by  the  difficulty  often  experienced  in  restraining  the  people  from 
taking  summary  vengeance  in  cases  of  atrocious  murder.  So 
strong  is  this  sentiment  that  a  species  of  wild  justice  is  sure  to  step 
in  to  supply  the  place  of  judicial  remissness.  Such  justice,  from 
being  lawless  and  impulsive,  is  too  often  misguided  and  erroneous, 
and,  in  a  settled  state  of  society,  is  always  criminal.  It  being  the 
nature  of  men,  that  if  the  regular,  lawful  infliction  of  death  as  a 
judicial  j)enalty  be  abolished,  it  will  be  inflicted  by  the  avenger  of 
blood,  or  by  tumultuous  assemblies  of  the  people,  society  has  to 
choose  between  securing  to"  the  homicide  a  fair  trial  by  the  consti- 
tuted authorities,  and  giving  him  up  to  the  blind  spirit  of  revenge. 

3.  Experience  teaches  that  where  human  life  is  undervalued, 
it  is  insecure  ;  that  where  the  murderer  escapes  with  impunity 
or  is  inadequately  punished,  homicides  are  fearfully  multiplied. 
The  practical  question,  therefore,  is.  Who  is  to  die  ?  the  innocent 
man  or  the  murderer  ? 

Homicide  in  Self-Defence. 

That  homicide  in  self-defence  is  not  forbidden  by  the  sixth 
commandment,  is  plain,  (1.)  Because  such  homicide  is  not  mali- 
cious, and,  therefore,  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  pro- 
hibition. (2.)  Because  self-preservation  is  an  instinct  of 'our 
nature,  and  therefore,  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God.  (3.)  Be- 
cause it  is  a  dictate  of  reason  and  of  natural  justice  that  if  of  two 
persons  one  must  die,  it  should  be  the  aggressor  and  not  the 
aggrieved.  (4.)  Because  the  universal  judgment  of  men,  and 
the  Word  of  God,  pronounce  the  man  innocent  who  kills  an- 
other in  defence  of  his  own  life  or  that  of  his  neighbor. 


810.1  THE   SIXTH   COJkOIANDMENT.  365 

War. 

It  is  conceded  tJiat  war  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  evib  that 
can  be  inflicted  on  a  people  ;  that  it  involves  the  destruction  of 
propert}'-  and  life  ;  that  it  demoralizes  both  the  victors  and  the 
vanquished  ;  that  it  visits  thousands  of  non-combatants  with  all 
the  miseries  of  poverty,  widowhood,  and  orphanage  ;  and  that  it 
tends  to  arrest  the  progress  of  society  in  everything  that  is  good 
and  desirable.  God  overrules  wars  in  many  cases,  as  He  does  the 
tornado  and  the  earthquake,  to  the  accomplishment  of  his  benev- 
olent purposes,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  war  in  itself  is  not 
a  great  evil.  He  makes  the  wi'ath  of  man  to  praise  Him.  It  is 
conceded  that  wars  undertaken  to  gratify  the  ambition,  cupidity, 
or  resentment  of  rulers  or  people,  are  unchristian  and  wicked.  It 
is  also  conceded  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  wars  which  have 
desolated  the  world  have  been  unjustifiable  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  man.  Nevertheless  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  war  in 
all  cases  is  to  be  condemned. 

1.  This  is  proved  because  the  right  of  self-defence  belongs  to 
nations  as  well  as  to  individuals.  Nations  are  bound  to  protect 
the  lives  and  property  of  their  citizens.  If  these  are  assailed  by 
force,  force  may  be  rightfully  used  in  their  protection.  Nations 
also  have  the  right  to  defend  their  own  existence.  If  that  be 
endangered  by  the  conduct  of  other  nations,  they  have  the  natural 
right  of  self-protection.  A  war  may  be  defensive  and  yet  in  one 
sense  aggressive.  In  other  woixis,  self-defence  may  dictate  and 
render  necessary  the  first  assault.  A  man  is  not  bound  to  wait 
until  a  murderer  actually  strikes  his  blow.  It  is  enough  that  he 
sees  undeniable  manifestations  of  a  hostile  purpose.  So  a  nation 
is  not  bound  to  wait  until  its  territories  are  actually  invaded  and 
its  citizens  murdered,  before  it  appeals  to  arms.  It  is  enough  that 
there  is  clear  evidence  on  the  part  of  another  nation  of  an  inten- 
tion to  commence  hostilities.  While  it  is  easy  to  lay  down  the 
principle  that  war  is  justifiable  only  as  a  means  of  self-defence, 
the  practical  application  of  this  principle  is  beset  with  difficulties. 
The  least  aggression  on  national  property,  or  the  slightest  in- 
fringement of  national  rights,  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  step 
toward  national  extinction,  and  therefore  justify  the  most  extreme 
measures  of  redress.  A  nation  may  think  that  a  certain  enlarge- 
ment of  territory  is  necessary  to  its  security,  and,  therefore,  that 
it  has  the  right  to  go  to  war  to  secure  it.  So  a  man  may  say 
that  a  portion  of  his  neighbour's  farm  is  necessary  to  the  full  en- 


366  PART  III.     Cn.  XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

joyment  of  liis  o^vn  property,  and  therefore  that  he  has  the  right 
to  appropriate  it  to  himself.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  nations 
are  as  much  bound  by  the  moral  law  as  individual  men  ;  and 
therefore  that  what  a  man  may  not  do  in  the  protection  of  his 
own  rights,  and  on  the  plea  of  self-defence,  a  nation  may  not  do. 
A  nation  therefore  is  bound  to  exercise  great  forbearance,  and  to 
adopt  every  other  available  means  of  redressing  wrongs,  before  it 
plunges  itself  and  others  into  all  the  demorahzing  miseries  of  war. 

2.  The  lawfulness  of  defensive  war,  however,  does  not  rest  ex- 
clusively on  these  general  principles  of  justice  ;  it  is  distinctly 
recognized  in  Scripture.  In  numerous  cases,  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, such  wars  were  commanded.  God  endowed  men  with 
special  qualifications  as  warriors.  He  answered  when  consulted 
through  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  or  by  the  prophets,  as  to  the 
propriety  of  military  enterprises  (Judges  xx.  27  f.,  1  Sam. 
xiv.  37,  xxiii.  2,  4  ;  1  Kings  xxii.  6  ff.)  ;  and  He  often  interfered 
miraculously  in  behalf  of  his  people  when  they  were  engaged  in 
battle.  Many  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  dictated  by  the  Spirit, 
are  either  prayers  for  divine  assistance  in  war  or  thanksgivings 
for  victory.  It  is  very  plain,  therefore,  that  the  God  whom  the 
patriarchs  and  projahets  worshipped  did  not  condemn  war,  when 
the  choice  was  between  war  and  annihilation.  It  is  a  very  clear 
case  that  if  the  Israelites  had  not  been  allowed  to  defend  them- 
selves against  their  heathen  neighbours  they  would  have  soon  been 
extirpated,  and  their  religion  would  have  perished  with  them. 

As  the  essential  principles  of  morals  do  not  change,  what  was 
permitted  or  commanded  under  one  dispensation,  cannot  be 
unlawful  under  another,  unless  forbidden  by  a  new  revelation. 
The  New  Testament,  however,  contains  no  such  revelation.  It 
does  not  say,  as  in  the  case  of  divorce,  that  war  was  permitted 
to  the  Hebrews  because  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  but  that 
under  the  Gospel  a  new  law  was  to  prevail.  This  very  silence 
of  the  New  Testament  leaves  the  Old  Testament  rule  of  diity 
on  this  subject  still  in  force.  Accordingly,  although  there  is 
no  express  declaration  on  the  subject,  as  none  was  needed,  we 
find  the  lawfulness  of  war  quietly  assumed.  When  the  soldiers 
inquired  of  John  the  Baptist  what  they  should  do  to  prepare  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  he  did  not  tell  them  that  they  must  forsake 
the  profession  of  arms.  The  centurion,  whose  faith  our  Lord  so 
highly  commended  (Matt.  viii.  5-13),  was  not  censured  for 
being  a  soldier.  So  also  the  centurion,  a  devout  man,  whom 
God  in  a  vision   commanded  to  send  for  Peter,  and  on  whom, 


§  lo.j  THE   SIXTH   COMMANDMENT.  367 

and  his  associates,  according  to  the  record  in  the  tenth  chapter 
of  Acts,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  with  miraculous  gifts,  was  allowed 
to  remain  in  the  army  of  even  a  heathen  emperor.  If  magis- 
trates, as  we  learn  from  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Romans,  are 
armed  Avitli  a  right  or  power  of  life  and  death  over  their  own 
citizens,  they  certainly  have  the  right  to  declare  war  in  self- 
iefence. 

In  the'  early  ages  of  the  Church  there  was  a  great  disinclina- 
iion  to  engage  in  military  service,  and  the  fathers  at  times  jus- 
tified this  reluctance  by  calling  the  la^vfulness  of  all  wars  into 
question.  But  the  real  sources  of  this  opposition  of  Chi'istians 
to  entering  the  army,  were  that  they  thereby  gave  themselves 
up  to  the  service  of  a  power  which  persecuted  their  religion ; 
and  that  idolatrous  usages  were  inseparably  connected  with  mil- 
itary duties.  When  the  Roman  empire  became  Christian,  and 
the  cross  was  substituted  for  the  eagle  on  the  standards  of  the 
army,  this  opposition  died  away,  till  at  length  we  hear  of  fight- 
mg  prelates,  and  of  military  orders  of  monks. 

No  historical  Christian  Church  has  pronounced  all  war  to  be 
unlawful.  The  Augsburg  Confession  ^  expressly  says  that  it  is 
proper  for  Christians  to  act  as  magistrates,  and  among  other 
things  "  jure  bellare,  militare,"  etc.  And  Presbyterians  espec- 
ially have  shown  that  it  is  not  against  their  consciences  to  con- 
tend to  the  death  for  their  rights  and  hberties. 

Suicide. 

It  is  conceivable  that  men  who  do  not  believe  in  God  or  in  a 
future  state  of  existence,  should  think  it  allowable  to  take  refuge 
in  annihilation  from  the  miseries  of  this  life.  But  it  is  miac- 
countable,  except  on  the  assumption  of  temporary  or  permanent 
insanity,  that  any  man  should  rush  uncalled  into  the  retributions 
of  eternity.  Suicide,  therefore,  is  most  frequent  among  those 
who  have  lost  all  faith  in  religion.^  It  is  a  very  complicated 
crime ;  our  life  is  not  our  own ;  we  have  no  more  right  to  de- 
stroy our  hfe  than  we  have  to  destroy  the  hfe  of  a  fellow-man. 
Suicide  is,  therefore,  self  murder.  It  is  the  desertion  of  the 
post  which  God  has  assigned  us  ;  it  is  a  deliberate  refusal  to 
submit  to  his  will ;  it  is  a  crime  which  admits  of  no  repentance, 
and  consequently  involves  the  loss  of  the  soul. 

1  I.  xvi.  2;  Hase,  L'lhvi  SymboUcl,  3(1  edit.  p.  14. 

2  It  is  estimated  that  one  death  out  of  175  in  London  is  suicide;  in  New  York,  one  in 
172 ;  in  Vienna,  one  in  IGO ;  in  Paris,  one  in  72. 


S68  PART  m.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Duelling. 
Duelling  is  another  violation  of  the  sixth  commandraent.  Its 
advocates  defend  it  on  the  same  principle  on  which  international 
war  is  defended.  As  independent  nations  have  no  common  tri- 
bunal to  which  they  can  resort  for  the  redress  of  injuries,  they 
are  justifiable,  on  the  principle  of  self-defence,  in  appealing  to  arms 
for  the  protection  of  their  rights.  In  like  manner,  it  is  said, 
there  are  offences  for  Avhich  the  law  of  the  land  affords  no 
redress,  and  therefore,  the  individual  must  be  allowed  to  seek 
redress  for  himself.  But  (1.)  There  is  no  evil  for  which  the  law 
does  not,  or  should  not,  afford  redress.  (2.)  The  redress  sought 
in  the  duel  is  unjustifiable.  No  one  has  the  right  to  kill  a  man 
for  a  slight  or  an  insult.  Taking  a  man's  hfe  for  a  hasty  word, 
or  even  for  a  serious  injury,  is  murder  in  the  sight  of  God,  who 
has  ordained  the  penalty  of  death  as  the  punishment  for  only 
the  most  atrocious  crimes.  (3.)  The  remedy  is  preposterous ; 
for  most  frequently  it  is  the  aggrieved  party  who  loses  his  life. 
(4.)  Duelling  is  the  cause  of  the  greatest  suffering  to  innocent 
parties,  which  no  man  has  a  right  to  inflict  to  gratify  his  pride  or 
resentment.  (5.)  The  survivor  in  a  fatal  duel  entails  on  himself, 
unless  his  heart  and  conscience  be  seared,  a  hfe  of  misery. 

§  11.   The  Seventh  Commandment. 

This  commandment,  as  we  learn  from  our  Lord's  exposition  of 
it,  given  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount,  forbids  all  impurity  in 
thought,  speech,  and  behaviour.  As  the  social  organization  of  so- 
ciety is  founded  on  the  distinction  of  the  sexes,  and  as  the  well- 
being  of  the  state  and  the  purity  and  prosperity  of  the  Church 
rest  on  the  sanctity  of  the  family  relation,  it  is  of  the  last  impor- 
tance that  the  normal,  or  divinely  constituted  relation  of  the  sexes 
be  preserved  in  its  integrity. 

Celibacy. 

Among  the  important  questions  to  be  considered  under  the 
head  of  this  commandment,  the  first  is.  Whether  the  Bible 
teaches  that  there  is  any  special  virtue  in  a  life  of  celibacy? 
This  is  really  a  question,  whether  there  was  an  error  in  the  cre- 
ation of  man. 

1.  The  very  fact  that  God  created  man,  male  and  female,  de- 
claring that  it  was  not  good  for  either  to  be  alone,  and  constituted 
marriage  in   paradise,  should  be  decisive  on  this  subject.     The 


§11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  869 

doctrine  which  degrades  marriage  by  making  it  a  less  holy  state, 
has  its  foundation  in  Manicheeism  or  Gnosticism.  It  assumes 
that  evil  is  essentially  connected  with  matter  ;  that  sin  has  its 
seat  and  source  in  the  body ;  that  holiness  is  attainable  only 
through  asceticism  and  "  neglecting  of  the  body  ;  "  that  because 
the  "vita  angelica"  is  a  higher  form  of  life  than  that  of  men 
here  on  earth,  therefore  marriage  is  a  degradation.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject,  therefore,  is  thoroughly 
anti-Christian.  It  rests  on  principles  derived  from  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  heathen.  It  presupposes  that  God  is  not  the  author 
of  matter  ;  and  that  He  .did  not  make  man  pure,  when  He  in- 
vested him  with  a  body. 

2.  Throughout  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  marriage  is  rep- 
resented as  the  normal  state  of  man.  The  command  to  our  first 
parents  before  the  fall  was,  "  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  re- 
plenish the  earth."  Without  marriage  the  purpose  of  God  in 
regard  to  our  world  could  not  be  carried  out ;  it  is,  therefore, 
contradictory  to  the  Scriptures  to  assume  that  marriage  is  less 
holy,  or  less  acceptable  to  God  than  celibacy.  To  be  unmarried, 
was  regarded  under  the  old  dispensation  as  a  calamity  and  a  dis- 
grace. (Judges  xi.  37  ;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  63  ;  Is.  iv.  1 ;  xiii.  12.)  The 
highest  earthly  destiny  of  a  woman,  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  which  are  the  word  of  God,  was  not  to  be  a  nun, 
but  to  be  the  mistress  of  a  family,  and  a  mother  of  children. 
(Gen.  XXX.  1  ;  Ps.  cxiii.  9  ;  cxxvii.  3  ;  cxxviii.  3,  4 ;  Prov.  xviii. 
22  ;  xxxi.  10,  28.) 

3.  The  same  high  estimate  of  marriage,  characterizes  the  teach- 
ings of  the  New  Testament.  Marriage  is  declared  to  be  "  honour- 
able in  all."  (Heb.  xiii.  4.)  Paul  says,  "  Let  every  man  have  his 
own  wife,  and  let  every  woman  have  her  own  husband."  (1 
Cor.  vii.  2.)  In  1  Timothy  v.  14,  he  says:  "I  will,  that  the 
younger  women  marry."  In  1  Timothy  iv.  3,  "  forbidding  to 
marry  "  is  included  among  the  doctrines  of  devils.  As  the  truth 
comes  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  false  doctrines,  according  to  the 
Apostle's  mode  of  thinking,  come  from  Satan,  and  his  agents,  the 
demons  ;  they  are  "  the  seducing  spirits  "  spoken  of  in  the  same 
verse. 1    Our  Lord  more  than  once  (Matt.  xix.  5  ;  Mark  x.  7) 

1  Calvin  in  his  comment  on  this  verse  says:  "  Non  multo  post  Apostoli  mortem  exorti  sunt 
EncratitiB  (qui  nomen  sibi  a  continentia  indiderunt)  Taciani;  Cathari;  Montanus  cum  sua 
secta,  et  tandem  ManichKi,  qui  ab  esu  carnium  et  conjurjio  abhorrerent,  et  tanquam  res 

profanas  damnarent Excipiunt  [Papista?]  se  Encratitis  et  Manichwis  esse  dissimiles, 

quia  non  simplieiter  usum  conjugii  et  carnium  interdicunt,  sed  certis  tantum  diebus  cogunt 
ad  carnis  abstinentiam,  solos  autem  monachos  et  sacerdotes  cum  monialibus  ad  votum  coe- 
libatus  cogunt.  Verum  hjcc  ....  nimis  frivola  est  excusatio.     Nam  sanctimoniam  uihilo- 

VOL.   III.  2i 


370  PART  in.    Ch.  XIX. -the  law. 

quotes  and  enforces  the  original  law  given  in  Genesis  ii.  24,  that  a 
man  shall  "•  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  mito 
his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh."  The  same  passage  is 
quoted  by  the  Apostle  as  containing  a  great  and  symbolical  truth. 
(Eph.  v.  31.)  It  is  thus  taught  that  the  marriage  relation  is  the 
most  intimate  and  sacred  that  can  exist  on  earth,  to  which  all 
other  human  relations  must  be  sacrificed.  We  accordingly  find 
that  from  the  beginning,  with  rare  exceptions,  patriarchs,  proph- 
ets, apostles,  confessors,  and  martyrs,  have  been  married  men.  If 
marriage  was  not  a  degradation  to  them,  surely  it  cannot  be  to 
monks  and  priests. 

The  strongest  proof  of  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage  relation  in 
the  sight  of  God,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  both  in  the  Old 
and  in  the  New  Testaments,  it  is  made  the  symbol  of  the  relation 
between  God  and  his  people.  "  Thy  Maker  is  thy  husband,"  are 
the  words  of  God,  and  contain  a  world  of  truth,  of  grace,  and  of 
love.  The  departure  of  the  people  from  God,  is  illustrated  by  a 
reference  to  a  wife  forsaking  her  husband ;  while  God's  forbear- 
ance, tenderness,  and  love,  are  compared  to  those  of  a  faithful 
husband  to  his  wife.  "  As  the  bridegroom  rejoiceth  over  the 
bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee."  (Is.  Ixii.  5.)  In  tho 
New  Testament,  this  reference  to  the  marriage  relation,  to  illus- 
trate the  union  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  is  frequent  and 
instructive.  The  Church  is  called  "  the  Bride,  the  Lamb's  wife." 
(Rev.  xxi.  9.)  And  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  salvation  is 
set  forth  as  the  marriage,  or  the  marriage-sujjper  of  the  Lamb. 
(Rev.  xix.  7,  9.)  In  Ephesians  v.  22-33,  the  union  between  hus- 
bands and  wives,  and  the  duties  thence  resulting,  are  set  forth  as 
so  analogous  to  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  Church,  that  in 
some  cases  it  is  hard  to  determine  to  which  union  the  language  of 
the  Apostle  is  to  be  applied.  It  is  a  matter  of  astonishment,  in 
view  of  all  these  facts,  that  marriage  has  so  extensively  and  persist- 
ently been  regarded  as  something  degrading,  and  celibacy  or  per- 
petual virginity  as  a  special  and  peculiar  virtue.  No  more  strik- 
ing evidence  of  the  influence  of  a  false  philosophy  in  perverting 
the  minds  of  even  good  men,  is  afforded  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Church.  Even  the  Reformers  did  not  escape  altogether  from 
its  influence.  They  often  speak  of  marriage  as  the  less  of  two 
evils ;  not  as  in  itself  a  good  ;  and  not  as  the  normal  and  appro- 
priate state  in  which  men  and  women  should  Hve,  as  designed 

minus  in  his  rebus  locant;  deinde  falsum  et  adulterinum  Dei  cultum  instituunt:  postremo 
coascientias  alligaut  necessitati,  a  qua  debebaut  esse  libera."    Edit.  Berlin,  1831. 


§  11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  371 

by  God  in  the  very  constitution  of  their  nature,  and  as  the  best 
adapted  to  the  exercise  and  development  of  all  social  and  Chris- 
tian virtues.  Thus  Calvin  says  :  "  Unde  constat  et  aliam  quam- 
libet,  extra  conjugium,  societatem  coram  ipso  [Deo]  maledictam 
esse  ;  et  illani  ipsam  conjugalem  in  necessitatis  remedium  esse  or- 

dinatam,  ne  in  effrenem  libidinem  proruamus Jam  quum 

per  naturjB  conditionem  et  accensa  post  lapsum  libidine,  mulieris 
consortio  bis  obnoxii  simus,  nisi  quos  singulari  gratia  Deus  inde 
exemit ;  videant  singuli  quid  sibi  datum  sit.  Virginitas,  fateor, 
virtus  est  non  contemnenda :  sed  quoniam  aliis  negata  est,  aliis 
nonnisi  ad  tempus  concessa,  qui  ab  incontinentia  vexantur,  et  su- 
periores  in  certamine  esse  nequeunt  ad  matrimonii  subsidium  se 
conferant,  ut  ita  in  suae  vocationis  gradu  castitatem  colant."^ 
That  is,  virginity  is  a  virtue.  Celibacy  is  a  higher  state  than 
marriage.  Those  who  cannot  live  in  that  state,  should  descend  to 
the  lower  platform  of  married  life.  With  such  dregs  of  Mani- 
chean  philosophy  was  the  pure  truth  of  the  Bible  contaminated, 
even  as  held  by  the  most  illustrious  Reformers. 

4.  The  teaching  of  Scripture  as  to  the  sanctity  of  marriage  is 
confirmed  by  the  experience  of  the  world.  It  is  only  in  the  mar- 
riage state  that  some  of  the  purest,  most  disinterested,  and  most 
elevated  principles  of  our  nature  are  called  into  exercise.  All 
that  concerns  filial  piety,  and  parental  and  especially  maternal 
afi:ection,  depends  on  marriage  for  its  very  existence.  Yet  on  the 
purifying  and  restraining  influence  of  these  affections  the  well- 
being  of  human  society  is  in  a  large  measure  dependent.  It  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  family  that  there  is  a  constant  call  for  acts  of 
kindness,  of  self-denial,  of  forbearance,  and  of  love.  The  family, 
therefore,  is  the  sphere  the  best  adapted  for  the  development  of 
all  the  social  virtues ;  and  it  may  be  safely  said  that  there  is  far 
more  of  moral  excellence  and  of  true  religion  to  be  found  in  Chris- 
tian households,  than  in  the  desolate  homes  of  priests,  or  in  the 
gloomy  cells  of  monks  and  nuns.  A  man  with  his  children  or 
grandchildren  on  his  knees,  is  an  object  of  higher  reverence  than 
any  emaciated  anchorite  in  his  cave. 

5.  Our  Lord  teaches  that  a  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits.  There 
has  been  no  more  prolific  source  of  evil  to  the  Church  than  the 
unscriptural  notion  of  the  special  virtue  of  virginity  and  the  en- 
forced celibacy  of  the  clergy  and  monastic  vows,  to  which  that 
notion  has  given  rise.  This  is  the  teaching  of  history.  On  this 
point  the  testimony  of  Romanists  as  well  as  of  Protestants  is  de- 

^ImtituUo,  II.  viii.  41,  42;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  i.  pp.  264,  265. 


872  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

cisive  and  overwlielraing.  It  may  be  admitted  that  tlie  Catholic 
clergy  in  this  and  in  some  other  countries  are  as  decorous  in  their 
lives,  as  the  clergy  of  other  denominations,  without  invalidating 
the  testimony  of  history  as  to  the  evils  of  vows  of  celibacy. 

Protestants,  while  asserting  the  sanctity  of  marriage  and  deny- 
ing the  superior  virtue  of  a  life  of  celibacy,  do  not  deny  that  there 
are  times  and  circumstances  in  which  celibacy  is  a  virtue  :  i.  <?., 
that  a  man  may  perform  a  virtuous  act  in  resolving  never  to 
marry.  The  Church  often  lias  work  to  do,  for  which  single  men 
are  the  only  proper  agents.  The  cares  of  a  family,  in  other  words, 
would  unfit  a  man  for  the  execution  of  the  task  assigned.  This, 
however,  does  not  suppose  that  celibacy  is  in  itself  a  virtue.  It 
may  also  happen  that  a  rich  man  may  be  called  upon  to  under- 
take a  work  which  would  necessitate  his  disencumbering  himself 
of  the  care  of  his  estate,  and  subjecting  himself  to  a  life  of  pov- 
erty. The  same  is  true  of  the  state.  In  fact  military  service, 
for  the  great  majority  of  the  rank  and  file  of  an  army,  is  an  es- 
tate of  forced  celibacy  so  long  as  the  service  continues.  And  even 
with  regard  to  the  officers,  the  liberty  to  marry  is  very  much  re- 
stricted in  the  standing  armies  of  Europe.  There  are  times  when 
marriage  is  inexpedient.  Our  Lord  in  foretelling  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  said,  "  Woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to 
them  that  give  suck  in  those  days."  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
escape  such  woes.  When  Christians  had  no  security  for  life  or 
home  ;  when  they  were  liable  to  be  torn  away  from  their  families, 
or  to  have  all  means  of  j)roviding  for  their  wants  taken  out  of 
their  hands,  it  was  better  for  them  not  to  marry.  It  is  in  refer- 
ence to  such  times  and  circumstances  that  the  words  of  Christ,  in 
the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Matthew,  were  uttered,  and  the  advice 
of  the  Apostle,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  was 
given.  The  Pharisees  asked  our  Lord  whether  a  man  could  put 
away  his  "\vife  at  pleasure.  He  referred  them  to  the  original  in- 
stitution of  marriage,  as  showing  that  it  was  intended  to  be  an 
indissoluble  connection.  His  disciples  said.  In  that  case  it  is  bet- 
ter that  a  man  should  not  marry.  Our  Lord  replied  :  Whether 
it  is  better  for  a  man  to  marry  or  not,  is  not  a  question  for  every 
man  to  decide  for  himself.  "  That  the  unmarried  state  is  better, 
is  a  saying  not  for  every  one,  and  indeed  only  for  such  as  it  is 
divinely  intended  for."  ^     That  is,  those  to  whom  the  requisite 

1  Commentary,  Critical  and  Explnnntory,  on  The  Old  and  Neto  Testament.  Matthew 
xix.  11.  By  Rev.  Robert  Jamieson,  St.  Paul's,  Glasgow,  Scotland;  Rev.  A.  R.  Fausset,  A. 
M.,  St.  Cuthbert,  York,  England;  and  the  Rev.  David  Brown,  D.  D  ,  Aberdeen,  Scotland 
Hartford,  Conn.  1871. 


§  11.]         THE  SEVENTH  COMMANDMENT.  373 

grace  is  given,  "  Oiiines  liujus  dicti  capaces  esse  negans,  sigiiificat 
electionem  non  esse  positam  in  manu  nostra,  acsi  de  re  nobis  sub- 
jecta  esset  consultatio.  Si  quis  utile  sibi  esse  putat  uxore  carere, 
atqne  ita  nullo  examine  habito,  coelibatus  legem  sibi  edicit,  longe 
fallitur.  Deus  enira,  qui  pronuntiavit  bonum  esse,  ut  viro  adjutrix 
sit  mulier,  contempti  sui  ordinis  poenam  exiget :  quia  nimium  sibi 
arrogant  mortales,  dum  se  a  coelesti  vocatione  eximere  tentant. 
Porro  non  esse  omnibus  liberum,  eligere  utrum  libuerit,  inde  probat 
Cliristus,  quia  speciale  sit  continentire  donum :  nam  quum  dicit,  non 
omnes  esse  capaces,  sed  quibus  datum  est,  clare  demonstrat  non 
omnibus  esse  datum."  ^  Those  to  whom  it  is  given  to  lead  an 
unmarried  life,  as  our  Lord  teaches  (Matt.  xix.  10),  are  not  only 
those  who  by  their  natural  constitution  are  unfit  for  the  marriage 
state,  but  those  whom  God  calls  to  special  service  in  his  Church 
and  whom  He  fits  for  that  work. 

The  doctrine  which  Paul  teaches  on  this  subject  is  perfectly 
coincident  with  the  teachings  of  our  Lord.  He  recognizes  mar- 
riage as  a  divine  institution  ;  as  in  itself  good ;  as  the  normal  and 
proper  state  in  which  men  and  women  should  live  ;  but  as  it  is 
necessarily  attended  by  many  cares  and  distractions,  it  was  ex- 
pedient in  times  of  trouble,  to  remain  unmarried.  This  is  the 
purport  of  Paul's  teachings  in  First  Corinthians  vii.  No  one 
of  the  sacred  writers,  whether  in  the  Old  or  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, so  exalts  and  glorifies  marriage  as  does  this  Apostle  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  He,  therefore,  is  not  the  man,  guided 
as  he  was  in  all  his  teachings  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  depreciate 
or  undervalue  it,  as  only  the  less  of  two  evils.  It  is  a  positive 
good :  the  union  of  two  human  persons  to  supplement  and  comple- 
ment the  one  the  other  in  a  way  which  is  necessary  to  the  per- 
fection or  full  development  of  both.  The  wife  is  to  her  husband 
what  the  Church  is  to  Christ.  Nothing  higher  than  this  can  pos- 
sibly be  said. 

1  Calvin  on  Matthew  xix.  10,  11,  in  N.  T.  Comment.  Berlin,  1838,  vol.  ii.  p.  159.  Although 
Calvin  sometimes  speaks  disparagingly  of  marriage,  at  other  times,  especially  when  writ- 
ing against  the  Papists,  he  vindicates  its  sanctity.  Thus  in  connection  with  the  passage 
quoted  above,  he  says:  "  Si  conjiigium  instituit  Deus  in  communem  humani  generis  salutem, 
licet  qusedam  minus  grata  secum  trahat,  non  ideoprotinus  spernendum  est.  Discamus  ergo, 
si  quid  in  Dei  beneficiis  nobis  non  arridet,  non  tarn  lauti  esse  ac  niorosi,  quin  reverenter  illis 
utamur.  Pntsertim  nobis  in  sancto  conjugio  cavenda  est  \\xc.  pravitas:  nam  quia  multis 
molestiis  implicitum  est,  semper  conatus  est  Satan  odio  et  infamia  gravare,  ut  homines  ab 
eo  subluceret.  Et  Hieronymus  nimis  luculentum  maligni  perversique  ingenii  specimen  in 
eo  edidit,  quod  non  tantum  calumniis  exagitat  sacrum  ilium  et  divinum  vit.-c  ordinem,  sed 
quascunque  potest  ex  profanis  auctoribus  XoiSopias  accumulat,  quae  ejus  honestatem  dd" 
forment."  —  Ibid.  p.  158. 


374  PART  in.     Cn.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

History. 
No  one  can  read  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially  those  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  without  seeing  clear  indications  of  the 
prevalence,  even  in  the  apostolic  churches,  of  the  principles  of 
that  philosophy  which  held  that  matter  was  contaminating ;  and 
which  inculcated  asceticism  as  the  most  efficacious  means  of  the 
purification  of  the  soul.  This  doctrine  had  already  been  adopted 
and  reduced  to  practice  by  the  Essenes  among  the  Jews.  Farther 
East,  under  a  somewhat  different  form,  it  had  prevailed  for  ages 
before  the  Christian  era,  and  still  maintains  its  ground.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Brahminical  philosophy  the  individuality  of  man  de- 
pends on  the  body.  Complete  emancipation  from  the  body,  there- 
fore, secures  the  merging  of  the  finite  into  the  infinite.  The  drop 
is  lost  in  the  ocean,  and  this  is  the  highest  and  ultimate  destiny  of 
man.  It  is  not  therefore  to  be  wondered  at,  that  the  early  fathers 
came  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  these  principles,. or  that 
asceticism  gained  so  rapidly  and  maintained  so  long  its  ascendancy 
in  the  Church.  The  depreciation  of  the  divine  institution  of  mar- 
riage, and  the  exaltation  of  virginity  into  the  first  place  among 
Christian  virtues,  was  the  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of 
this  spirit.  Ignatius  called  voluntary  virgins  "  the  jewels  of 
Christ."  Justin  Martyr  desired  celibacy  to  prevail  to  the  "  great- 
est possible  extent."  Tatian  regarded  marriage  as  inconsistent 
with  spiritual  worship.  Origen  "  disabled  himself  in  his  youth  " 
and  regarded  marriage  as  a  pollution.  Hieracas  made  "  virginity 
a  condition  of  salvation."  Tertullian  denounced  second  marriage 
as  criminal,  and  represented  celibacy  as  the  ideal  of  Christian  life, 
not  only  for  the  clergy,  but  also  for  the  laity.  Second  marriage 
was  early  prohibited  so  far  as  the  clergy  were  concerned,  and  soon 
came  in  their  case  the  prohibition  of  marriage  altogether.  The 
Apostolical  Constitutions  prohibited  priests  from  contracting  mar- 
riage after  consecration.  The  Council  of  Ancyra,  A.  D.  314, 
allowed  deacons  to  marry,  provided  they  stipulated  for  the  privi- 
lege before  ordination.  The  Council  of  Elvira,  A.  D.  305,  forbade 
the  continuance  of  the  marriage  relation  (according  to  the  -com- 
mon interpretation  of  its  canons)  to  bishops,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons on  pain  of  deposition.^  Jerome  was  fanatical  in  his  denun- 
ciation of  marriage  ;  and  even  Augustine  was  carried  away  by 
the  spirit  of  the  age.  In  answer  to  the  objection  that  if  men  acted 
on  his  principles  the  world  would  be  depopulated,  he  answered 

1  See  Schaff,  History  of  The  Christian  Church,  New  York,  18G7,  vol.  i.  §§  91,  96. 


§11.]  tup:  seventh  commandment.  375 

So  much  the  better,  for  in  that  case  Christ  would  come  the 
sooner.  ^  Siricius,  Bishop  of  Rome  A.  D.  385,  decided  that  mar- 
riage was  inconsistent  Avith  the  clerical  office  ;  and  Avas  followed  in 
this  view  by  his  successors.  Great  opposition,  however,  was  ex- 
perienced in  enforcing  celibacy,  and  it  required  all  the  energy  of 
Gregory  VII.  to  have  the  decisions  of  councils  carried  into  effect. 
Ultimately,  however,  the  rule,  so  far  as  the  clergy  are  concerned, 
was  acquiesced  in,  and  received  the  authoritative  sanction  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  That  Council  decided,^  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  statum 
conjugalem  anteponendum  esse  statui  virginitatis,  vel  coelibatus,  et 
non  esse  melius,  et  beatius  manere  in  virginitate  aut  coelibatu, 
quam  jungi  matrimonio  :  anathema  sit."  On  this  assumed  higher 
virtue  of  celibacy,  in  the  preceding  canon  it  was  ordered  :  "  Si 
.  quis  dixerit,  clericos  in  sacris  ordinibus  constitutos,  vel  regulares, 
castitatem  solemniter  professos,  posse  matrimonium  contrahere, 
contractumque  validum  esse,  non  obstante  lege  ecclesiastica,  vel 
voto  :  et  oppositum  nil  aliud  esse,  quam  damnare  matrimonium ; 
posseque  oranes  contrahere  matrimonium,  qui  non  sentiunt  se 
castitatis,  etiam  si  eam  voterint,  habere  donum  ;  anathema  sit ; 
cum  Dens  id  recte  petentibus  non  deneget,  nee  patiatur  nos  supra 
id,  quod  possumus,  tentari." 

Although  the  doctrine  that  virginity,  as  the  tloman  Catechism 
expresses  it,  "  summopere  commendatur,"  as  being  better,  and 
more  perfect  and  holy  than  a  state  of  marriage,  is  made  the 
ostensible  ground  of  the  enforced  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  it  is 
manifest  that  hierarchical  reasons  had  much  to  do  in  making  the 
Romish  Church  so  strenuous  in  insisting  that  its  clergy  should  be 
unmarried.  This  Gregory  VII.  avows  when  he  says,-^  "  Non 
liberari  potest  ecclesia  a  servitute  laicorum,  nisi  liberentur  clerici 
ab  uxoribus."  And  Melancthon  felt  authorized  to  say  in  refer- 
ence to  the  ceHbacy  of  the  clergy  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  Una 
est  vera  et  sola  causa  tuendi  ccDelibatus,  ut  opes  commodius  ad- 
ministrentur  et  splendor  ordinis  retineatur."  * 

As  the  Reformation  was  a  return  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  only 
infalHble  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  and  as  in  the  Scriptures  mar- 
riage is  exalted  as  a  holy  state,  and  no  preeminence  in  excellence 
is  assigned  to  celibacy  or  virginity  ;  and  as  the  Reformers  denied 
the  authority  of  the  Church  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience 
or  to  curtail  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  had  made  his  people 

'  Augustine,  De  Bono  Conjugali,  10;    Worhs,  edit.   Benedictines,   Paris,  1837,  vol.  vi. 
p.  551,  c. 
*  Sess.  xxiv.,  canon  10;    Streitwolf,  Lihri  SymboUci,  Gottingen,  1846,  p.  91. 
8  Ejmt.  lib.  iii.  p.  7.  *  See  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopddie,  Art.  "  Cclibat." 


376  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. —  the   law. 

free,  Protestants  pronounced  with  one  voice  against  the  obhga- 
tion  of  monastic  vows  and  of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 

The  Greek  Church  petrified  at  an  early  date.  It  assumed  the 
form  which  it  still  retains,  before  the  doctrine  of  the  special  sanc- 
tity of  celibacy  had  gained  ascendancy.  It  abides  therefore  by 
the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451,  and  of 
Trullo,  A.  D.  692,  which  permitted  marriage  to  priests  and  dea- 
cons. Those  Greeks  who  are  in  communion  with  the  Church  of 
Rome  enjoy  the  same  liberty.  Benedict  XIV.  declared  in  refer- 
ence to  them,  "  Etsi  expetendum  quam  maxime  esset,  ut  Grajci, 
qui  sunt  in  sacris  ordinibus  constituti,  castitatem  non  secus  ac 
Latini  servarent.  Nihilominus,  ut  eorum  clerici,  subdiaconi, 
diaconi  et  presbyteri  uxores  in  eorum  ministerio  retineant,  dum- 
modo  ante  sacros  ordines,  virgines,  non  viduas,  neque  corruptas 
duxerint,  Romana  non  prohibet  Ecclesia.  Eos  autem,  qui  viduam 
vel  corruptam  duxerunt,  vel  ad  secunda  vota,  prima  uxore  mortua, 
convolarunt,  ad  subdiaconatum,  diaconatum  et  presbyteratum  pro- 
moveri  omnino  prohibemus."  ^  In  the  Russian  Church  the  priests 
are  required  to  be  inarried  men ;  but  second  marriages  are  for 
them  prohibited.  The  bishops  are  chosen  from  the  monks  and 
must  be  unmarried. 

Marriage  a  Divine  Institution. 

Marriage  is  a  divine  institution.  (1.)  Because  founded  on  the 
nature  of  man  as  constituted  by  God.  He  made  man  male  and 
female,  and  ordained  marriage  as  the  indispensable  condition  of 
the  continuance  of  the  race.  (2.)  Marriage  was  instituted  before 
the  existence  of  civil  society,  and  therefore  cannot  in  its  essential 
nature  be  a  civil  institution.  As  Adam  and  Eve  were  married 
not  in  virtue  of  any  civil  law,  or  by  the  intervention  of  a  civil 
magistrate,  so  any  man  and  woman  cast  together  on  a  desert 
island,  could  la^vfully  take  each  other  as  husband  and  Avife.  It 
is  a  degradation  of  the  institution  to  make  it  a  mere  civil  con- 
tract.  (3.)  God  commanded  men  to  marry,  when  He  com- 
manded them  to  increase,  and  multiply  and  replenish  the  earth. 
(4.)  God  in  liis  word  has  prescribed  the  duties  belonging  to  the 
marriage  relation  ;  He  has  made  known  his  will  as  to  the  parties 

1  Bulla,  Ivii.  §7,  2<\;  .Unf/n.  Bull.  Rnm.,  Ltixenilnirji,  1752,  vol.  xvi.  p.  100.  b.  The 
controversies  in  the  Church  on  this  siihject  are  detailed  by  the  leading  modern  ccclesiastieal 
historians,  as  Neander,  Gieselcr,  and  Sehaff.  The  merits  of  the  question  are  discusr^ed  in 
numerous  separate  treatises,  as  well  as  in  such  books  as  Burnet's  ExposUiim  of  the  Tliirty- 
nine  Articles,  Jeremy  Taylor's  Diictor  DnJiitanlium  (in.  iv.  Workx,  Loudon,  18:28,  vol. 
xiii.  pp.  549-610),  ICIiiott's  DeUnention  <if  liomiiii.-<in,  Thiersch's  Vurlesuju/cn  iiher  Knthul 
icisrtius  und  Protestantismus,  2d  edit.  Erlangen,  1848. 


§  11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  377 

who  may  lawfully  be  united  in  marriage ;  He  has  determined  the 
continuance  of  the  relation  ;  and  the  causes  which  alone  justify 
its  dissolution.  These  matters  are  not  subject  to  the  will  of  the 
parties,  or  to  the  authority  of  the  State.  (5.)  The  vow  of  mutual 
fidelity  made  by  husband  and  wife,  is  not  made  exclusively  by 
each  one  to  the  other,  but  by  each  to  God.  When  a  man  con- 
nects himself  with  a  Christian  Church  he  enters  into  covenant 
with  his  brethren  in  the  Lord  ;  mutual  obligations  are  assumed  ; 
but  nevertheless  the  covenant  is  made  with  God.  He  joins  the 
Church  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God ;  he  promises  to  regulate 
his  faith  and  practice  by  the  divine  word ;  and  the  vow  of  fidelity 
is  made  to  God.  It  is  the  same  in  marriage.  It  is  a  voluntary, 
mutual  compact  between  husband  and  wife.  They  promise  to  be 
faithful  to  each  other  ;  bvit  nevertheless  they  act  in  obedience  to 
God,  and  promise  to  Him  that  they  will  live  together  as  man  and 
<vife,  according  to  his  word.  Any  violation  of  the  comjDact  is, 
therefore,  a  violation  of  a  vow  made  to  God. 

Marriage  is  not  a  sacrament  in  the  sense  Vwhicli  in  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  sacraments,  nor  in"  the  sense  of 
the  Romish  Church  ;  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  sacred  institution. 
Its  solemnization  is  an  office  of  religion.  It  should,  therefore,  be 
entered  upon  with  due  solemnity  and  in  the  fear  of  God  ;  and 
should  be  celebrated,  ^.  e.,  the  ceremony  should  be  performed  by 
a  minister  of  Christ.  He  alone  is  authorized  to  see  to  it  that  the 
law  of  God  is  adhered  to  ;  and  he  alone  can  receive  and  register 
the  marriage  vows  as  made  to  God.  The  civil  magistrate  can 
only  Avitness  it  as  a  civil  contract,  and  it  is  consequently  to  ignore 
its  religious  character  and  sanction  to  have  it  celebrated  by  a 
civil  officer.  As  the  essence  of  the  marriage  contract  is  the 
mutual  compact  of  the  parties  in  the  sight  of  God  and  in  the  pres- 
ence of  witnesses,  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that  it  should  be 
celebrated  by  a  minister  of  religion  or  even  by  a  civil  magistrate. 
It  may  be  lawfully  solemnized,  as  among  the  Quakers,  without 
the  intervention  of  either.  Nevertheless  as  it  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  that  the  religious  nature  of  the  institution  should  be 
kept  in  view,  it  is  incumbent  on  Christians,  so  far  as  they  them- 
selves are  concerned,  to  insist  that  it  should  be  solemnized  as  a 
religious  service. 

Marriage  as  a   Civil  Institution. 

As  a  man's  being  a  servant  of  God  and  bound  to  make  his  word 
the   rule  of  his  faith   and  practice,  is  not  inconsistent  "with  hia 


878  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

being  a  servant  of  the  state,  and  bound  to  render  obedience  to  its 
laws  ;  so  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  marriage  is  an 
ordinance  of  God,  that  it  should  be,  in  another  aspect,  a  civil 
institution.  It  is  so  implicated  in  the  social  and  civil  relations  of 
men  that  it  of  necessity  comes  under  the  cognizance  of  the  state. 
It  is  therefore  a  civil  institution.  (1.)  In  so  far  as  it  is,  and 
must  be,  recognized  and  enforced  by  the  state.  (2.)  It  imposes 
civil  obligations  which  the  state  has  the  right  to  enforce.  The 
husband  is  bound  to  sustain  his  wife,  for  example,  and  he  is 
constrained  by  the  civil  law  to  the  performance  of  this  duty. 
(3.)  Marriage  also  involves,  on  both  sides,  rights  to  property ; 
and  the  claims  of  children  born  in  wedlock  to  the  property  of 
their  parents.  All  these  questions  concerning  property  fall  legit- 
imately under  the  control  of  the  civil  law.  In  many  countries 
not  only  property,  but  rank,  title,  and  political  prerogatives  are 
implicated  with  the  question  of  marriage.  (4.)  It  belongs  to  the 
state,  therefore,  as  the  guardian  of  these  rights,  to  determine 
rwhat  marriages  are  lawful  and  what  unlawful ;  how  the  contract 
is  to  be  solemnized  and  authenticated ;  and  what  shall  be  its  legal 
consequences.  All  these  laws  Christians  are  bound  to  obey,  so 
far  as  obedience  to  them  is  consistent  with  a  good  conscience. 

The  legitimate  power  of  the  state  in  all  these  matters  is  limited 
by  the  revealed  will  of  God.  It  can  make  nothing  an  impediment 
to  marriage  which  the  Scriptures  do  not  declare  to  be  a  bar  to 
that  union.  It  can  make  nothing  a  ground  of  dissohdng  the  mar- 
riage contract  which  the  Bible  does  not  make  a  valid  ground  of 
divorce.  And  the  state  can  attach  none  other  than  civil  pains 
and  penalty  to  the  violation  of  its  laws  concerning  marriage. 
This  is  only  saying  that  a  Christian  government  is  bound  to 
respect  the  conscientious  convictions  of  the  people.  It  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  for  the  state  to 
make  its  will  paramount  to  the  will  of  God.  Plain  as  this  prin- 
ciple seems  to  be,  it  is  nevertheless  constantly  disregarded  in 
almost  all  Christian  nations,  whether  Catholic  or  Protestant.  In 
England,  for  example,  it  is  still  the  law,  that  no  member  of  the 
royal  family  can  marry  without  the  consent  of  the  reigning  sov- 
ereign. If  this  meant  nothing  more  than  that  any  member  of  the 
royal  family  thus  marrying,  should  forfeit  for  himself  and  his 
childi-en  all  right  of  succession  to  the  crown,  it  might  be  all  right. 
But  the  real  meaning  is  that  such  a  marriage  is  null  and  void ; 
that  parties  otherwise  lawfully  married  and  whom  God  has  joined 
together  as  man  and  wife,  are  not  man  and  wife.     This  is  to 


511.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  379 

bring  the  law  of  man  and  the  law  of  God  into  direct  collision, 
and  make  the  human  supersede  the  divine.  In  Prussia  a  subor- 
dinate officer  of  the  army  cannot  marry  mthout  the  consent  of 
his  commander.  If  he  should  marry  without  that  consent,  it 
might  be  right  to  make  him  throw  up  his  commission ;  but  to  say 
that  his  wife  is  not  a  mfe,  is  not  only  untrue,  but  it  is  a  monstrous 
injustice  and  cruelty.  In  England,  until  of  late  years,  no  mar- 
riaffe  was  valid  unless  solemnized  in  church,  within  canonical 
hours,  and  by  a  man  in  priest's  orders.  This  law  was  designed 
specially  for  the  protection  of  heiresses  from  the  wiles  of  fortune- 
hunters.  It  might  be  just  to  determine  that  no  marriage  not 
thus  solemnized  should  convey  any  right  to  property  ;  but  to  say 
that  piarties  married  five  minutes  after  twelve  o'clock,  noon,  are 
not  married  at  all,  whereas  had  the  ceremony  been  performed  ten 
minutes  sooner,  they  would  be  truly  man  and  wife,  shocks  the 
conscience  and  common  sense  of  men.  So  in  this  country  before 
the  abolition  of  slavery,  according  to  the  laws  of  our  Southern 
States,  no  slave  could  marry.  A  young  white  man  married  a 
young  woman,  whom  no  one  in  the  community  supposed  had  a 
drop  of  African  blood  in  her  veins.  It  was  proved,  however,  that 
she  was  a  slave.  Her  husband  purchased  her,  manumitted  her, 
repudiated  her,  married  another  woman,  and  was  received  into 
the  communion  of  a  Presbyterian  Church.  The  law  of  God  was 
thus  regarded  as  a  mere  nulHty.^ 

Because  marriage  is  in  some  of  its  aspects  a  civil  institution,  to 
be  regulated  within  certain  limits,  by  the  civil  law,  men  have 
treated  it  as  though  it  were  a  mere  business  engagement.  They 
ignore  its  character  as  a  divine  institution,  regulated  and  con- 
trolled by  divine  laws.  Civil  legislatures  should  remember  that 
they  can  no  more  annul  the  laws  of  God  than  the  laws  of  nature. 
If  they  pronounce  those  not  to  be  married  who,  by  the  divine 
law,  are  married  ;  or  if  they  separate  those  whom  God  hath  joined 
together,  their  laws  are  absolute  nullities  at  the  bar  of  con- 
science and  in  the  sight  of  God. 

1  This  however  was  in  accordance  with  the  canonical  law,  which  made  error  as  to  the 
condition  of  one  of  the  parties,  as  bond  or  free,  a  ground  of  annulling  the  marriage  contract. 
Stahl,  De  Matrimonio  Rescindendo.  Berlin,  1841.  Canon  Leg.  cap.  2,  4,  x.,  de  conjugio 
servorum,  4,  9.  See  Gi'schen  in  Herzog's  Encyklopddie ,  art.  "Ehe."  This  is  still  the 
doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church.  See  Dens,  Tractatus  de  MatAinonio ;  Thenlogia,  edit. 
Dublin,  1832,  vol.  vii.,  N.  72,  p.  199.  See  also  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Marriage  and 
Divorce,  by  Joel  Prentiss  Bishop.    4th  edition,  Boston,  1864,  vol.  i.  chap.  x.  §§  154-163. 


380  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Monogamy. 

Marriage  is  a  compact  between  one  man  and  one  woman  to  live 
together,  as  man  and  "wafe,  until  separated  by  death.  According 
to  this  definition,  first,  the  marriage  relation  can  subsist  onty 
between  one  man  and  one  woman  ;  secondly,  the  union  is  per- 
manent, ^'.  g.,  it  can  be  dissolved  only  by  the  death  of  one  or  both 
of  the  parties,  except  for  reasons  specified  in  the  word  of  God  ; 
and  thirdly,  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties  dissolves  tlie  union,  so 
that  it  is  lawful  for  the  survivor  to  maiTy  again. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  or  that  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
of  marriage  is  opposed  to  and  condemns  polygamy,  it  is  be 
remarked,  — 

1.  That  such  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
all  ages  and  in  every  part  of  the  world.  There  has  never  been  a 
church  calling  itself  Christian  which  tolerated  a  plurality  of  wives 
among  its  members.  There  could  hardly  be  a  stronger  proof  than 
this  fact  that  such  is  the  law  of  Christ.  It  is  morally  certain  that 
the  whole  Church  cannot  have  mistaken,  on  such  a  subject  as 
this,  the  mind  and  will  of  its  divine  Head  and  Master. 

2.  Marriage  as  originally  constituted  and  ordained  by  God  was 
between  one  man  and  one  woman.  And  the  lancjuag;e  of  Adam 
when  he  received  Eve  from  the  hands  of  her  Maker,  proves  that 
such  was  the  essential  nature  of  the  relation  :  "  And  Adam  said, 
This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh There- 
fore shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
unto  his  wife  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh."  (Gen.  ii.  23,  24.)  Or, 
as  our  Lord  quotes  and  expounds  the  passage,  "  They  twain  shall 
be  one  flesh:  so  then  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh." 
(Mark  x.  8.)  "  The  two,"  and  no  more  than  two,  become  one. 
This  was  not  only  the  language  of  unfallen  Adam  in  Paradise, 
but  the  language  of  God  uttered  through  the  lips  of  Adam,  as 
appears  not  only  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  but  also  from 
our  Lord's  attributing  to  them  divine  authority,  as  He  evidently 
does  in  the  passage  just  quoted.  Thus  the  law  of  marriage  as 
originally  instituted  by  God,  required  that  the  union  should  be 
between  one  man  and  one  woman.  This  law  could  be  changed 
only  by  the  authority  by  which  it  was  originally  enacted.  De- 
litzsch  remarks  on  this  passage:^  "In  these  words  not  only  the 
deepest  spiritual  union,  but  a  union  comprehending  the  whole 
nature  ot  man,  an  all  comprehending  personal  communion,  is  rep- 

1  Die  Genesis,  Leipzig,  1852,  p.  114. 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  381 

resented  as  the  essence  of  marriage ;  and  monogamy  is  set  forth 
as  its  natural  and  divinely  appointed  form." 

3.  Although  this  original  law  was  partially  disregarded  in  later 
times,  it  was  never  abrogated.  Polygamy  and  divorce  were  in  a 
measure  tolerated  under  the  Mosaic  law,  yet  in  all  ages  among 
the  Hebrews,  monogamy  was  the  rule,  and  polygamy  the  ex- 
ception, as  it  was  among  other  civilized  nations  of  antiquity. 
Polygamy  first  appears  among  the  descendants  of  Cain.  (Gen.  iv. 
19.)  Noah  and  his  sons  had  each  but  one  wife.  Abraham  had 
but  one  wife,  until  the  impatience  of  Sarah  for  children  led  him 
to  take  Hagar  as  a  concubine.  The  same  rule  of  marriage  was 
observed  by  the  prophets  as  a  class.  Polygamy  was  confuied  in 
a  great  measure  to  kings  and  princes.  There  was  also  an  honour- 
able distinction  made  between  the  wife  and  the  concubine.  The 
former  retained  her  preeminence  as  the  head  of  the  family.  Nu- 
merous passages  of  the  Old  Testament  go  to  prove  that  monogamy 
was  considered  as  the  law  of  marriage,  from  which  plurality  of 
wives  was  a  departure.  Throughout  the  Proverbs,  for  example, 
it  is  the  blessing  of  a  good  wife,  not  of  wives,  that  is  continually 
set  forth.  (Prov.  xii.  4  ;  xix.  14  ;  xxxi.  10  ff .)  The  apocryphal 
books  contain  clear  evidence  that  after  the  exile  monogamy  was 
ahnost  universal  among  the  Jews  ;  and  it  may  be  inferred  from 
such  passages  as  Luke  i.  5  ;  Acts  v.  1,  and  many  others,  that  the 
same  was  true  at  the  time  of  the  advent  of  Christ. 

With  regard  to  the  toleration  of  polygamy  under  the  Mosaic 
law,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  seventh  commandment  be- 
longs to  the  same  category  as  the  ^ixth  and  eighth.  These  laws 
are  not  founded  on  the  essential  nature  of  God,  and  therefore 
are  not  immutable.  They  are  founded  on  the  permanent  relations 
,  of  men  in  their  present  state  of  existence.  From  this  it  follows, 
(1.)  That  they  bind  men  only  in  their  present  state.  The  laws 
of  property  and  marriage  can  have  no  application,  so  far  as  we 
know,  to  the  future  world,  where  men  shall  be  as  angels,  neither 
marrying  nor  giving  in  marriage.  (2.)  These  laws  being  founded 
on  the  permanent  and  natural  relations  of  men,  cannot  be  set 
aside  by  human  authority,  because  those  relations  are  not  subject 
to  the  will  or  ordinance  of  men.  (3.)  They  may  however  be 
dispensed  ^^dth  by  God.  He  commanded  the  Israelites  to  despoil 
the  Egyptians  and  to  dispossess  the  Canaanites,  but  this  does 
not  prove  that  one  nation  may,  of  its  own  motion,  seize  on  the 
inheritance  of  another  people.  If  God,  therefore,  at  any  time 
and  to  any  people  granted  permission  to  practise  polygamy,  then 


382  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

so  long  as  that  permission  lasted  and  for  those  to  whom  it  was 
given,  polygamy  was  lawful,  and  at  all  other  times  and  for  all 
other  persons  it  was  unla"\vful.  This  principle  is  clearly  recog- 
nized in  what  our  Saviour  teaches  concerning  divorce.  It  was 
permitted  the  Jews  under  the  Mosaic  law  to  put  away  their 
wives  ;  as  soon  as  that  law  was  abolished,  the  right  of  divorce 
ceased. 

4.  Monogamy,  however,  does  not  rest  exclusively  on  the  orig- 
inal institution  of  marriage,  or  upon  the  general  drift  of  the 
Old  Testament  teaching,  but  mainly  on  the  clearly  revealed  wiU 
of  Christ.  His  mil  is  the  supreme  law  for  all  Christians,  and 
rightfully  for  all  men.  When  the  Pharisees  came  to  Him  and 
asked  Him  whether  a  man  could  lawfidly  put  away  his  wife, 
He  answered,  that  marriage  as  instituted  by  God  was  an  indis- 
soluble union  between  one  man  and  one  woman ;  and,  therefore, 
that  those  whom  God  had  joined  together  no  man  could  put  asun- 
der. This  is  the  doctrine  clearly  taught  in  Matthew  xix.  4-9 ; 
Mark  x.  4-9  ;  Luke  xvi.  18  ;  Matthew  v.  32.  In  these  passages 
our  Lord  expressly  declares  that  if  a  man  marries  while  his  first 
wife  is  living  he  commits  adultery.  The  exception  which  Christ 
himseK  makes  to  this  rule,  mil  be  considered  under  the  head  of 
divorce. 

The  Apostle  teaches  the  same  doctrine  in  Romans  vii.  2,  3 : 
"  The  woman  which  hath  an  husband  is  bound  by  the  law  to  her 
husband,  so  long  as  he  liveth  ;  but  if  the  husband  be  dead,  she  is 
loosed  from  the  law  of  her  husband.  So  then,  if  while  her  hus- 
band liveth,  she  be  married  to  another  man,  she  shall  be  called 
an  adulteress :  but  if  her  husband  be  dead,  she  is  free  from  that 
law  ;  so  that  she  is  no  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to  another 
man."  The  doctrine  of  this  jsassage  is  that  marriage  is  a  com- 
pact between  one  man  and  one  woman,  which  can  be  dissolved 
only  by  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties.  So  in  1  Corinthians 
vii.  2 :  "  Let  every  man  have  his  o-svn  wife,  and  let  every  woman  i 
have  her  own  husband,"  it  is  taken  for  granted  that,  in  the 
Christian  Church,  a  plurality  of  mves  is  as  much  out  of  the  ques- 
tion as  a  plurality  of  husbands.  This  assumption  runs  tlirough 
the  whole  New  Testament.  We  not  only  never  read  of  a  Chris- 
tian's having  two  or  more  wives  ;  but  whenever  the  duty  of  the 
marriage  relation  is  spoken  of,  it  is  always  of  the  husband  to  his 
wife,  and  of  the  mfe  to  her  husband.  In  the  judgment,  therefore, 
of  the  whole  Christian  Church,  marriage  is  a  covenant  between 
one  man  and  one  woman  to  live  together  as  husband  and  wife, 
until  separated  by  death. 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  383 

5.  This  Scriptural  law  is  confirmed  by  the  providential  law 
which  secures  the  nmnerical  equahty  of  the  sexes.  Had  polygamy 
been  according  to  the  divine  purpose,  we  should  naturally  expect 
that  more  women  would  be  born  than  men.  But  the  reverse  is 
the  fact.  There  are  more  men  than  women  born  into  the  world. 
The  excess,  however,  is  only  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  greater 
peril  to  life  to  which  men  are  exposed.  The  law  of  providence 
is  the  numerical  equality  of  the  sexes  ;  and  this  is  a  clear  inti- 
mation of  the  will  of  God  that  every  man  sluauld  have  his  own 
wife,  and  every  woman  her  own  husband.  Such  being  the  will  of 
God,  as  revealed  both  in  his  word  and  in  his  providence,  every- 
thing which  tends  to  counteract  it  must  be  evil  in  its  nature  and 
consequences.  The  doctrine  wliich  depreciated  marriage,  and 
made  celibacy  a  virtue,  flooded  the  Church  with  corruption.  And 
everything  in  our  modern  civilization  and  modes  of  living 
which  renders  marriage  difficult,  and  consequently  infrequent,  is 
to  be  deprecated,  and  if  possible  removed.  That  every  man 
should  have  his  own  wife  and  every  woman  her  own  husband,  is 
the  divinely  appointed  preventive  of  the  "  Social  Evil"  with  all 
its  unutterable  horrors.^  Every  other  preventive  is  human  and 
worthless.  Ratlier  than  that  the  present  state  of  thmgs  should 
continue,  it  would  be  better  to  return  to  the  old  patriarchal  usage, 
and  let  parents  give  their  sons  and  daughters  in  marriage  as  soon 
as  they  attained  the  proper  age,  on  the  best  terms  they  can. 

6.  As  all  the  permanently  obligatory  laws  of  God  are  founded 
on  the  nature  of  his  creatures,  it  follows  that  if  He  has  ordained 
that  marriage  must  be  the  union  of  one  man  and  one  woman,  there 
must  be  a  reason  for  this  in  the  very  constitution  of  man  and  in 
the  nature  of  the  marriage  relation.  That  relation  must  be  such 
that  it  cannot  subsist  between  one  and  many ;  between  one  man 
and  more  than  one  woman.  This  is  plain,  first,  from  the  nature 
of  the  love  which  it  involves ;  and  secondly,  from  the  nature  of 
the  union  which  it  constitutes.  First,  conjugal  love  is  peculiar 
and  exclusive.  It  can  have  but  one  object.  As  the  love  of  a 
mother  for  a  child  is  peculiar,  and  can  have  no  other  object  than 
her  own  child,  so  the  love  of  a  husband  can  have  no  other  object 
than  his  wife,  and  the  love  of  a  wife  no  other  object  than  her 
husband.  It  is  a  love  not  only  of  complacency  and  delight,  but 
also  of  possession,  of  property,  and  of  rightful  ownership.  This 
is  the  reason  why  jealousy  in  man  or  woman  is  the  fiercest  of  all 

1  The  fact  that  men  and  women,  who  make  the  murder  of  infants  a  profession,  are  loll- 
ing in  wealth,  is  enough  to  rouse  any  community  from  its  false  security. 


384  PART  III.     Cii.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

human  passions.  It  involves  a  sense  of  injury  ;  of  the  violation 
of  the  most  sacred  rights ;  more  sacred  even  than  the  rights  of 
property  or  life.  Conjugal  love,  therefore,  cannot  by  possibility 
exist  except  between  one  man  and  one  woman.  Monogamy  has 
its  foundation  in  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature.  Polygamy 
is  unnatural,  and  necessarily  destructive  of  the  normal,  or  divinely 
constituted  relation  between  husband  and  wife. 

Secondly,  in  another  aspect,  the  union  involved  in  marriage  can- 
not exist  except  bet\veen  one  man  and  une  woman.  It  is  not  merely 
a  union  of  feeling  and  of  interests.  It  is  such  a  union  as  to  pro- 
duce, in  some  sense,  identity.  The  two  become  one.  Such  is  the 
declaration  of  our  Lord.  Husband  and  wife  are  one,  in  a  sense 
which  justified  the  Apostle  in  saying  as  he  does,  in  Ephesians  v.  30, 
that  the  Avife  is  bone  of  her  husband's  bone,  and  flesh  of  his  flesh. 
She  is  his  body.  She  is  himself  (v.  28).  Such  is  this  union  that 
"  Qui  uxorem  repudiat,  quasi  dimidiam  sui  partem  a  seipso  avel- 
ht.  Hoc  autem  minime  patitur  natura,  ut  corpus  suum  quisque 
discerpat."  What  all  this  means  it  may  be  hard  for  us  to  under- 
stand. It  is  certain,  —  (1.)  That  it  does  not  refer  to  anything 
material,  or  to  any  identification  of  substance.  When  Adam 
said  of  Eve,  "  This  is  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh," 
he  doubtless  referred  to  her  being  formed  out  of  his  body.  But 
as  these  words  are  used  by  the  Apostle  to  express  the  relation  of 
all  wives  to  their  husbands,  they  must  be  understood  of  something 
else  than  identity  of  substance.  (2.)  The  oneness  of  man  and 
wife,  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak,  cannot  be  understood  in  any 
sense  inconsistent  with  their  distinct  subsistence  or  personahty. 
They  may  be  very  different  in  character  and  destiny.  The  one 
may  be  saved,  the  other  lost.  (3.)  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
the  meaning  of  the  strong  language  of  Scripture  on  this  subject 
is  not  exhausted,  by  representing  the  marriage  union  as  bemg 
merely  one  of  affection  ;  or  by  saying  that  the  husband  is  the 
complement  of  the  -wife  and  the  wife  of  the  husband  ;  that  is,  that 
the  marriage  relation  is  necessary  to  the  completeness  of  our 
nature  and  to  its  full  development  in  the  present  state  of  exist- 
ence ;  that  there  are  capacities,  feelings,  and  virtues  which  are  not 
otherAvise  or  elsewhere  called  into  exercise.  All  this  may  be  true, 
but  it  is  not  the  whole  truth.  (4.)  There  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 
a  community  of  hfe  between  husband  and  wife.  We  are  accus- 
tomed to  say,  and  to  say  truly,  that  the  life  of  parents  is  commu- 
nicated to  their  children.  Each  nation  and  every  historical  family 
has  a  form  of  life  by  which  it  is  distinguished.     As,  therefore,  the 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH  COMMANDMENT.  38' 

life  of  a  father  and  tlie  Kfe  of  his  son  are  the  same,  in  that  the 
blood  (i.  e.,  the  life)  of  the  parent  flows  in  the  veins  of  his  eliil- 
dren ;  so  in  an  analogous  sense  the  life  of  the  husband  and  wife  is 
one.  They  have  a  common  life,  and  that  common  or  joint  life  is 
transmitted  to  their  offspring.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  early 
Chui'ch.     The  Apostolical  Constitutions  say  :  ^  rj  ywr]  koivwvos  ifrn 

,Siov,  h'ov/J.a  r]  ets  eV  crai/xa  ek  Si'o  Traoa  6eov. 

The  analogy  which  the  Apostle  traces  out  in  Ephesians  v.  22— 
33,  between  the  conjugal  relation  and  the  union  between  Christ 
and  his  Church,  brings  out  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  marriage 
more  clearly  than  perhaps  any  other  passage  in  the  Bible.  No 
analogy  is  expected  to  answer  in  all  respects,  and  no  illustration 
borrowed  from  earthly  relations  can  bring  out  all  the  fulness  of 
the  things  of  God.  The  relation,  therefore,  between  a  husband 
and  his  wife,  is  only  an  adumbration  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to 
his  Church.  Still  there  is  an  analogy  between  the  two,  (1.)  As 
the  Apostle  teaches,  the  love  of  Christ  to  his  Church  is  peculiar 
and  exclusive.  It  is  such  as  He  has  for  no  other  class  or  body  of 
rational  creatures  in  the  universe.  So  the  love  of  the  husband 
for  his  wife  is  peculiar  and  exclusive.  It  is  such  as  he  has  for  no 
other  object ;  a  love  in  which  no  one  can  participate.  (2.)  Christ's 
love  for  his  Church  is  self-sacrificing.  He  gave  himself  for  it. 
He  purchased  the  Church  with  his  blood.  So  the  husband  should, 
and  when  true,  does,  m  all  things  sacrifice  himself  for  his  wife. 
(3.)  Christ  and  his  Church  are  one ;  one  in  the  sense  that  the 
Church  is  his  body.  So  the  husband  and  wife  are  in  such  a  sense 
one,  that  a  man  in  loving  his  wife  loves  himself.  (4.)  Christ's 
life  is  communicated  to  the  Church.  As  the  life  of  the  head  is 
communicated  to  the  members  of  the  human  body ;  and  the  life 
of  the  vine  to  the  branches,  so  there  is,  in  a  mysterious  sense,  a 
community  of  life  between  Christ  and  his  Church.  In  like  man- 
ner, in  a  sense  no  less  truly  mysterious,  there  is  a  community  of 
hfe  between  husband  and  wife. 

From  all  this  it  follows  that  as  it  would  be  utterly  incongruous 
and  impossible  that  Christ  should  have  two  bodies,  two  brides, 
two  churches,  so  it  is  no  less  incongruous  and  impossible  that  a 
man  should  have  two  wives.  That  is,  the  conjugal  relation,  as  it 
is  set  forth  in  Scripture,  cannot  by  possibility  subsist,  except  be- 
tween one  man  and  one  woman. 

1  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv. ;    Works  of  Clement  of  Rome,  edit.  Migne,  Paris,  1857,  vol.  i.  f, 
945,  c. 
VOL.  III.  25 


386  PART  III     Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Conclusions. 

1.  If  such  be  tlie  true  doctrine  of  marriage,  it  follows,  as  just 
stated,  that  polygamy  destroys  its  very  nature.  It  is  fovmded 
on  a  wrong  view  of  the  nature  of  woman  ;  places  her  in  a  false 
and  degrading  position  ;  dethrones  and  despoils  her ;  and  is  pro- 
ductive of  innumerable  evils. 

2.  It  follows  that  the  marriage  relation  is  permanent  and  in- 
dissoluble. A  limb  may  be  violently  severed  from  the  body,  and 
lose  all  vital  connection  with  it ;  and  husband  and  wife  may  be 
thus  violently  separated,  and  their  conjugal  relation  annulled ; 
but  in  both  cases  the  normal  connection  is  permanent. 

3.  It  follows  that  the  state  can  neither  constitute  nor  dissolve 
the  marriaofe  relation.     It  can  no  more  free  a  husband  or  wife  "  a 

o 

vinculo  matrimonii,"  than  it  can  free  a  father  "  a  vinculo  pater- 
nitatis."  It  may  protect  a  child  from  the  injustice  or  cruelty  of 
its  father,  or  even,  for  due  cause,  remove  him  from  all  parental 
control,  and  it  may  legislate  about  its  property,  but  the  natural 
bond  between  parents  and  children  is  beyond  its  control.  So  the 
state  may  legislate  about  marriage,  and  determine  its  accidents 
and  legal  consequences  ;  it  may  decide  who,  in  the  sight  of  the 
law,  shall  be  regarded  as  husband  and  wife,  and  when,  or  under 
what  circumstances,  the  legal  or  civil  rights  and  privileges  arising 
out  of  the  relation  shall  cease  to  be  enforced ;  and  it  may  protect 
the  person  and  rights  of  the  wife,  and,  if  necessary,  remove  her 
from  the  control  of  her  husband,  but  the  conjugal  bond  it  can- 
not dissolve.  All  decrees  of  divorce  "  a  vinculo  matrimonii,"  is- 
sued by  civil  or  ecclesiastical  authorities,  so  far  as  the  conscience 
is  concerned,  are  perfectly  moperative,  unless  antecedently  to  such 
decree  and  by  the  law  of  God,  the  conjugal  relation  has  ceased 
to  exist. 

4.  It  follows  from  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  marriage  that 
all  laws  are  evil  which  tend  to  make  those  two  whom  God  pro- 
nounces to  be  one  ;  such  laws,  for  example,  as  give  to  the  wife 
the  right  to  conduct  business,  contract  debts,  and  sue  and  be  sued, 
in  her  own  name.  This  is  attempting  to  correct  one  class  of  evils 
at  the  cost  of  incurring  others  a  hundred-fold  greater.  The  Word 
of  God  is  the  only  sure  guide  of  1  'gislative  action  as  weU  as  of  in- 
dividual conduct. 

6.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  it  follows  from  the  nature 
of  marriage,  that  next  to  murder,  adultery  is  the  greatest  of  all 
social  crimes.     Under  the  Old   Dispensation  it  was  punishable 


§11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMIMANDMENT  .  387 

■vdtli  death.  And  even  now  it  is  practically  impossible  to  con- 
vict a  husband  of  murder  who  kills  the  man  who  has  committed 
adultery  with  his  wife.  This  comes  from  human  laws  being  in 
conflict  with  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  God.  The  law  of  God  re- 
gards marriage  as  identifying  a  man  and  his  wife ;  the  laws  of  the 
state  too  often  regard  it  as  merely  a  civil  contract,  and  give  an 
injured  husband  no  redress  but  a  suit  for  damages  for  the  pecun- 
iary loss  he  has  sustained  by  being  deprived  of  the  services  of  his 
wife.  The  penalty  for  adultery,  to  be  in  any  due  proportion  to 
the  magnitude  of  the  crime,  should  be  severe  '^nd  degrading. 

6.  The  relative  duties  of  husband  and  wife  arising  out  of  their 
relation,  may  be  expressed  in  a  few  comprehensive  words.  The 
husband  is  to  love,  protect,  and  cherish  his  wife  as  himself,  i.  e., 
as  being  to  him  another  self.  The  duties  of  the  wife  are  set 
forth  in  the  time-honoured  Christian  formula,  "love,  honour,  and 
obey." 

Converted  Polygamists. 

The  question  has  been  mooted,  Whether  a  polj^gamist,  when 
converted  to  Christianity,  should  be  required  to  repudiate  all  his 
wives  but  one,  as  a  condition  of  his  admission  into  the  Christian 
Church  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  has  been  sought  from 
three  sources :  First,  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  marriage ;  sec- 
ondly, the  example  of  the  Apostles  when  dealing  with  such  cases ; 
and  thirdly,  from  a  consideration  of  the  effects  which  would  follow 
from  making  monogamy  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission 
to  the  Church. 

As  to  the  first  point,  it  is  admitted  by  all  Christians,  that  it  is 
the  law  of  God,  the  law  of  Christ,  and  consequently  the  law  of 
the  Christian  Church  that  polygamy  is  sinful,  being  a  violation 
of  the  original  and  permanently  obUgatory  law  of  marriage.  As 
every  man  who  enters  the  Church  professes  to  be  a  Christian, 
and  as  every  Christian  is  bound  to  obey  the  law  of  Christ,  it 
seems  plain  that  no  man  should  be  received  into  the  communion 
of  the  Church  who  does  not  conform  to  the  law  of  Christ  concern- 
ing marriage.  The  only  question  is.  Whether  Christ  has  made 
a  special  exception  in  favour  of  those  who  in  the  times  of  their 
ignorance,  contracted  the  obligations  of  marriage  with  more  than 
one  woman  ?  It  is  of  course  possible  that  such  an  exception 
might  have  been  made.  It  would  be  analogous  to  the  temporary 
suspension  of  the  original  law  of  marriage  in  favour  of  the  hard- 
hearted Jews.  Has  then  such  an  exception  been  made  ?  This  is 
the  second  point  to  be  considered.     It  concerns  a  matter  of  fact. 


388  PART  III.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Those  wlio  assume  that  such  an  exception  has  been  made,  are 
bound  to  produce  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  fact.  This  is  neces- 
sary not  only  to  satisfy  the  consciences  of  the  parties  concerned, 
but  also  to  justify  a  departure  from  a  plainly  revealed  law  of  God. 
It  would  be  a  very  serious  matter  to  set  up  in  a  heathen  country, 
a  church  not  conformed  in  this  matter  to  the  usual  law  of  Chris- 
tendom. Missionaries  are  sent  forth  to  teach  not  only  Christian 
doctrines  but  Christian  morals.  And  the  churches  which  they 
found,  profess  to  be  witnesses  for  Christ  as  to  what  He  would 
have  men  to  believe,  and  as  to  what  He  would  have  them  to  do. 
They  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  bear  false  testimony.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  there  is  no  clear  and  definite  expression  of  the  will  of 
Clu"ist,  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  that  the  case  contem- 
plated should  be  an  exception  to  the  Scriptural  law  of  marriage. 
There  is  no  instance  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  of  the  ad- 
mission of  a  polygamist  to  the  Christian  Church.  It  has,  indeed, 
been  inferred  from  1  Timothy  iii.  2,  where  the  Apostle  says,  a 
bishop  must  be  "  the  husband  of  one  wife,"  that  a  private  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  might  have  more  wives  than  one.  But  this  is 
in  itself  a  very  precarious  inference  ;  and  being  inconsistent  with 
Christ's  express  prohibition,  it  is  altogether  inadmissible.  The 
meaning  of  the  passage  has  been  much  disputed.  What  the 
Apostle  requires  is  that  a  bishop  should  be  in  all  respects  an 
exemplary  man  :  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of 
filthy  lucre  ;  the  husband  of  one  wife,  i.  e.,  not  a  polygamist. 
This  no  more  implies  that  other  men  may  be  polygamists,  than 
his  saying  that  a  bishop  must  not  be  greedy  of  filthy  lucre  and 
not  a  brawler,  implies  that  other  men  may  be  covetous  or  con- 
tentious. According  to  another  and  widely  accepted  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  in  1  Timothy  iii.  2,  and  the  corresponding  pas- 
sage in  Titus  i.  6,  the  injunction  of  the  Apostle  is  that  a  man 
who  has  been  married  more  than  once,  must  not  be  appointed  a 
bishop  or  presbyter.  If  this  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  Apos- 
tle, his  language  affords  still  less  ground  for  the  argument  drawn 
from  it  in  favour  of  the  lawfulness  of  polygamy  in  church  mem- 
bers. If  even  second  marriage  was  forbidden  to  presbyters,  a  for- 
tiori must  polygamy  be  regarded  as  inconsistent  with  the  law 
of  Christ. 

This  interpretation  was  very  generally  adopted  in  the  early 
Ohurch,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  by  Romanists,  and  is  sus- 
tained by  many  of  the  recent  commentators.  Bishop  Ellicott  de- 
cides in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  His  reasons  are,  —  (1.)  The 


J  11.]         THE  SEVENTH  COMMANDMENT.  S89 

opinion  of  the  early  writers  and  of  some  councils.  (2.)  The  special 
respect  paid  among  pagans  to  a  woman  who  was  "  umvira." 
(3  )  The  propriety,  in  the  case  of  eVio-KOTrot  and  StaKovot,  of  a  greater 
temperance.  (4.)  And  the  manifestation  of  a  greater  sanctity 
(cr£/..or,;s)  of  a  single  marriage,  which  he  thinks  is  indicated  even 
in  Scripture  (Luke  ii.  36,  37).     The  objections  to  it  are,  — 

In  the  first  place,  that  it  rests  on  an  unscriptural  view  of  mar- 
riage. According  to  the  Bible,  marriage  is  a  better,  higher,  and 
holier,  because  the  normal  state,  than  cehbacy.  It  was  only  in 
the  interest  of  the  doctrine  of  the.pecuhar  sanctity  of  celibacy, 
that  this  interpretation  was  adopted  by  the  fathers. 

In  the  second  place,  it  rests  on  the  no  less  unscriptural  assump- 
tion of  the  superior  holiness  of    the  clergy.     No  higher  degree 
of  moral  purity  is  required  of  them  than  of  other  men,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  every  man  is  required  to  be  perfectly  holy  in 
heart  and  life.   The  interpretation  in  question  gained  the  stronger 
hold  of  the  Church  as  the  doctrine  of    "the  grace  of   orders," 
and  of  the  priesthood  of  the  clergy  gained  ascendancy.     When 
the   Reformation  came  and  swept  away  these  two  doctrines,  it 
removed  the  two  principal  supports  of  the  interpretation  in  ques- 
tion     It  is  not  to  be  admitted  that  there  can  be  anything  unholy 
in  second  marriages,  which  an  infinitely  holy  God  declares  to  be 
lawful    (Rom.  vii.  3),   nor  can  it  be  conceded   that  the  clergy 
are  hoher  than  other  behevers,  seeing  that  the  only  priesthood  m 
the  Church  on  earth  is  the  priesthood  common  to  all  believers. 
In  the  third  place,  the  interpretation  which  makes  the  Apos- 
tle interdict  second   marriages   to  bishops  and   deacons,  is  con- 
trary to  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words.     The  parallel  passage 
in  Titus  i.  5,  6,  reads  thus  :  "  That  thou  shouldest,  ....  ordam 
elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee :  if  any  be  blame- 
less, the  husband  of   one  wife,  etc  ;  "    ^I'r..  iarlv  .   .  .  l^ca,  ywacKO,,^ 
Sivrip,  '  if  any  one  is  at  this  present  time  the  husband  of  one  wife.' 
It  is  the  present  state  and  character  of  the  man  that  are  to  be 
taken  into  the  account.     He  might  before  have  been  unmarried, 
or  even  a  polygamist,  but  when  ordained,  he  must,  if  married  at 
all,  be  the  husband  of  but  one  woman.     "  Qui  sit :  non  autem, 
Qiii  fuerit,"  says  Calvin  in  his  comment  on  1  Timothy  iii.  2.  And 
on  Titus  i.  6  he  says,  "  Qui  defuncta  uxore  alteram  jam  coelebs 
inducit,  nihilominus    unius  uxoris    maritus  censeri    debet.     Non 
enim  ehgendum  docet  qui  fuerit    maritus  unius  uxoris,  sed  qui 
sit."    Whichever  of  these  interpretations  of  1  Timothy  iii.  2,  be 
adopted,  whether  we  understand   the  Apostle  to  forbid   that  a 


390  PART  m.     Cii.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

polygamist,  or  that  a  man  twice  married,  should  be  admitted  to 
the  ministry,  in  neither  case  does  the  passage  give  authority  to 
receive  a  polygamist  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Church.  Consid- 
ering, then,  that  monogamy  is  the  undoubted  law  of  Christ ; 
considering  that  we  have  no  evidence  that  He  made  an  exception 
in  favour  of  heathen  converts  ;  and  considering  the  great  impor- 
tance that  churches,  founded  in  heathen  lands,  should  bear  true 
■witness  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  Christianity,  it  would 
seem  clear  that  no  man  having  more  than  one  wife  should  be 
admitted  to  Christian  fellowship. 

The  third  aspect  of  this  question  concerns  the  effects  of  enfor- 
cing the  Christian  law  of  marriage  in  heathen  lands.  It  is  urged 
that  this  would  result  in  great  cruelty  and  injustice.  For  a  man 
to  cast  off  women  whom  he  had  engaged  to  protect  and  cherish, 
to  abandon  not  only  them  but  their  children,  it  is  said,  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  any  right  principle.  To  this  it  may  be  replied,  — 
(1.)  That  in  many  heathen  cotmtries  it  is  not  the  husband  who 
supports  the  wives,  but  the  wives  who  support  the  husband.  They 
are  his  slaves,  and  sustain  him  by  their  labour.  There  would  be 
no  great  hardship  in  his  setting  them  free.  (2.)  But  when  th's  is 
not  the  case,  it  does  not  follow  that  because  a  man  ceases  to  re- 
gard several  women  as  his  wives,  he  should  cease  to  provide  for 
them,  and  for  the  welfare  of  his  children.  This  in  any  event,  as  a 
Christian,  he  is  bound  to  do. 

It  is  also  suggested,  as  a  difficulty  in  this  matter,  that  it  is  hard 
to  determine  which  of  his  several  wives  a  converted  polygamist 
should  retain.  Some  say,  that  it  is  the  one  first  married ; 
others  say,  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  make  his  own  selection. 
If  marriage  among  the  heathen  were  what  it  is  in  Christian 
countries,  there  would  be  no  room  for  doubt  on  this  subject. 
Then  the  first  contract  would  be  the  only  binding  one,  and  all 
the  rest  null  and  void.  But  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  word 
there  has  been  no  marriage  in  any  case.  There  has  been  no 
promise  and  vow  of  mutual  fidelity.  The  relation  of  a  hea- 
then polygamist  to  the  women  of  his  harem,  is  more  analogous 
to  concubinage  than  to  Christian  marriage.  The  relation  of  a 
heathen  polygamist  to  his  numerous  wives,  is  so  different  from 
the  conjugal  relation  as  contemplated  in  Scripture,  as  to  render 
it  at  least  doubtful  whether  the  husband's  obligation  is  exclu- 
sively, or  preeminently,  to  the  woman  first  chosen.  This  is  a 
point  of  casuistry  to  which  those  who  expect  to  labour  in  heathen 
countries  should  direct  their  attention.     The  Romish  Church  de- 


§  11]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  891 

cides  in  favour  of  the  first  wife.  The  Roman  Catechism  ^  says  : 
"  Atque  ob  eam  rem  fieri  intelligimus,  ut,  si  infidelis  quispiam, 
gentis  suce  more  et  consuetudine,  pkires  uxores  duxisset,  cum  ad 
veram  religionem  conversus  fuerit,  ]ubeat  eum  Ecclesia  ceteras 
omnes  reUnquere,  ac  priorem  tantum  justaa  et  legitimae  uxoris 
loco  habere." 

Divorce. 

The  questions  which  call  for,  at  least  a  brief  consideration, 
under  this  head  are,  (1.)  What  is  divorce,  and  what  are  its  legit- 
imate effects  ?  (2.)  What  are  the  Scriptural  grounds  of  divorce  ? 
(3.)  What  are  the  Romish  doctrine,  and  practice  on  this  subject  ? 
(4.)  What  are  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Protestant  Churches 
and  countries?  (5.)  What  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  and  of  its 
officers  in  cases  where  the  laws  of  the  state  on  this  subject  are  in 
conflict  with  the  law  of  God  ?  Works  on  civil  and  canon  law, 
when  treating  of  divorce,  take  a  much  wider  range  than  this,  but 
the  points  above  indicated  seem  to  include  those  of  most  interest 
and  importance  to  the  theologian. 

Divorce  ;  its  Nature  and  Effects. 

Divorce  is  not  a  mere  separation,  whether  temporary  or  perma- 
nent, "  a  mensa  et  thoro."  It  is  not  such  a  separation  as  leaves 
the  parties  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  simply  re- 
lieves them  from  the  obhgation  of  their  relative  duties.  Divorce 
annuls  the  "  vinculum  matrimonii,"  so  that  the  parties  are  no 
longer  man  and  wife.  They  stand  henceforth  to  each  other  in 
the  same  relation  as  they  were  before  marriage.  That  this  is  the 
true  idea  of  divorce  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  under  the  old 
dispensation  if  a  man  put  away  his  wife,  she  was  at  liberty  to 
marry  again.  (Deut.  xxiv.  1,  2.)  This  of  course  supposes  that 
the  marriage  relation  to  her  former  husband  was  effectually  dis- 
solved. Our  Lord  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  The  passages  in 
the  Gospels,  referring  to  this  subject,  are  Matthew  v.  31,  32  ;  xix. 
3-9 ;  Mark  x.  2-12 ;  and  Luke  xvi.  18.  The  simple  meaning 
of  these  passages  seems  to  be,  that  marriage  is  a  permanent  com- 
pact, which  cannot  be  dissolved  at  the  will  of  either  of  the  par- 
ties. If,  therefore,  a  man  arbitrarily  puts  away  his  wife  and 
marries  another,  he  commits  adultery.  If  he  repudiates  her  on 
just  grounds  and  marries  another,  he  commits  no  offence.  Our 
Lord  makes  the  guilt  of  marrying  after  separation  to  depend 
on  the  ground  of  the  sepai'ation.     Saying,  '  that  if  a  man  puts 

lu.  viii.  17  (19,  XXVI.);  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symholid,  Gottingen,  1846,  vol.  i.  p.  458. 


392  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

away  his  wife  for  any  cause  save  fornication,  and  marries  another, 
he  commits  adultery ' ;  is  saying  that  '  the  offence  is  not  commit- 
ted if  the  specified  ground  of  divorce  exists.'  And  this  is  saying 
that  divorce,  when  justifiable,  dissolves  the  marriage  tie. 

Although  this  seems  so  plainly  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  opposite  doctrine  prevailed  early  in  the  Church,  and 
soon  gained  the  ascendancy.  Augustine  himself  taught  in  his 
work  "  De  Conjugiis  Adulterinis,"  ^  and  elsewhere,  that  neither 
of  the  parties  after  divorce  could  contract  a  new  marriage.  In 
his  "  Retractions,"  however,  he  expresses  doubt  on  the  subject. 
It  passed,  however,  into  the  canon  law,  and  received  the  author- 
itative sanction  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  says,^  "  Si  quis  dixe- 
rit,  ecclesiam  errare,  cum  docuit  et  docet,  juxta  evangelicam  et 
apostolicam  doctrinam,  propter  adulterium  alterius  conjugum 
matrimonii  vinculum  non  posse  dissolvi ;  et  utrumque,  vel  etiam 
innocentem,  qui  causam  adulterio  non  dedit,  non  posse,  altero 
conjuge  vivente,  aliud  matrimonium  contrahere ;  moecharique 
eum,  qui,  dimissa  adultera,  aliam  duxerit,  et  earn,  quje,  dimisso 
adultero,  alii  nupserit ;  anathema  sit."  This  is  the  necessary 
consequence  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  marriage  relation  can  be 
dissolved  only  by  death.  The  indisposition  of  the  medieval  and 
Romish  Church  to  admit  of  remarriages  after  divorce,  is  no  doubt 
to  be  attributed  in  part  to  the  low  idea  of  the  marriage  state  pre- 
vailing in  the  Latin  Church.  It  had  its  ground,  however,  in  the 
interpretation  given  to  certain  passages  of  Scripture.  In  Mark 
x.  11,  12,  and  in  Luke  xvi.  18,  our  Lord  says  without  any  qual- 
ification :  "  Whosoever  putteth  away  his  wife,  and  marrieth  an- 
other, committeth  adultery  ;  and  whosoever  marrieth  her  that  is 
put  away  from  her  husband,  committeth  adultery."  This  was 
taken  as  the  law  on  the  subject,  without  regard  to  what  is  said 
in  Matthew  v.  31,  32,  and  xix,  3-9.  As,  however,  there  is  no 
doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  passages  in  Matthew,  they  cannot 
be  overlooked.  One  expression  of  the  will  of  Christ  is  as  authori- 
tative and  as  satisfactory  as  a  thousand  repetitions  could  make  it. 
The  exception  stated  in  Matthew,  therefore,  must  stand.  The 
reason  for  the  omission  in  Mark  and  Luke  may  be  accounted  for 
in  different  ways.  It  is  said  by  some  that  the  exception  was  of 
necessity  understood  from  its  very  nature,  whether  mentioned  or 
not.  Or  having  been  stated  twice,  its  repetition  was  unneces- 
sary.   Or  what  perhaps  is  most  probable,  as  our  Lord  was  speak- 

1  Works,  edit.  Renedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol.  vi.  p.  G58. 

*  Sess.  xxiv.  Canon  7;  Streitwolf,  Llbri  Sijmbolici,  GiJttingen,  134G,  vol.  i.  pp.  90,  91. 


I 


§  11.]  THE   SEVENTH  COMMANDMENT.  398 

ing  to  Pharisees,  who  held  that  a  man  might  put  away  his  wife 
when  he  jileased,  it  was  enough  to  say  that  such  divorces  as  they 
were  accustomed  to,  did  not  dissolve  the  bonds  of  marriage,  and 
that  the  parties  remained  as  much  man  and  wife  as  they  were 
before.  Under  the  Old  Testament,  divorce  on  the  ground  of 
adultery,  was  out  of  the  question,  because  adultery  was  pun- 
ished by  death.  And,  therefore,  it  was  only  when  Christ  was 
laying  down  the  law  of  his  own  kingdom,  under  which  the  death 
penalty  for  adultery  was  to  be  abohshed,  that  it  was  necessary 
to  make  any  reference  to  that  crime. 

It  has  been  earnestly  objected  to  the  doctrine  that' adultery 
dissolves  the  marriage  bond,  that  both  parties,  the  guilty  as 
well  the  innocent  become  free,  and  either  may  contract  a  new 
marriage.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  said,  that  all  that  a  man,  who 
wishes  to  get  rid  of  his  wife,  has  to  do,  is  to  commit  that  offence. 
He  will  then  be  at  Hberty  to  marry  whom  he  chooses.  To  this 
it  might  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  the  objection  bears 
rather  against  the  wisdom  of  the  law,  than  against  the  fact  that 
it  is  the  law  ;  or  in  other  words,  the  objection  is  against  the 
plam  meaning  of  the  words  of  Christ.  But  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  adultery  is  a  crime  in  the  sight  of  man  as  well  as  in 
the  sight  of  God,  and  as  such  it  ought  to  be  punished.  Under 
the  old  dispensation  it  was  punished  by  death  ;  under  the  new, 
it  may  be  punished  by  imprisonment,  or  by  prohibition  of  any 
future  marriage.  Christ  leaves  the  punishment  of  this,  as  of  other 
crimes,  to  be  determined  by  his  disciples  in  their  civil  capacity. 
All  He  does  is  to  teach  what  its  effects  are,  "  in  foro  conscien- 
tiae,'*  as  to  the  marriage  bond. 

Grounds  of  Divorce. 

As  already  stated,  marriage  is  an  indissoluble  compact  between 
one  man  and  one  woman.  It  cannot  be  dissolved  by  any  volun- 
tary act  of  repudiation  on  the  part  of  the  contracting  parties  ; 
nor  by  any  act  of  the  Church  or  State.  "  Those  whom  God 
has  joined  together,  no  man  can  put  asunder."  The  compact 
may,  however,  be  dissolved,  although  by  no  legitimate  act  of 
man.  It  is  dissolved  by  death.  It  is  dissolved  by  adultery  ; 
and  as  Protestants  teach,  by  wilful  desertion.  In  other  words, 
there  are  certain  things  Avhich  from  their  nature  work  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  marriage  bond.  All  the  legitimate  authority  the 
slate  luis  in  the  premises  is  to  take  cognizance  of  the  fact  tliat  the 


394  PART  m.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

marriage  is  dissolved  ;  officially  to  announce  it,  and  to  make  suit- 
able provision  for  the  altered  relation  of  the  parties. 

Under  the  preceding  head  it  has  already  been  shown  that  ac- 
cording to  the  plain  teaching  of  our  Saviour  the  marriage  bond  is 
annulled  by  the  crime  of  adultery.  The  reason  of  this  is,  that 
the  parties  are  no  longer  one,  in  the  mysterious  sense  in  which 
the  Bible  declares  a  man  and  his  wife  to  be  one.^  The  Apostle 
teaches  on  this  subject  the  same  doctrine  that  Christ  had  taught. 
The  seventh  chapter  of  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is 
devoted  to  the  subject  of  marriage,  in  reference  to  which  several 
questions' had  been  proposed  to  him. 

He  first  lays  down  the  general  principle,  founded  on  the  Word 
of  Gocl  and  the  nature  of  man,  that  it  is  best  that  every  man 
should  haA'e  his  own  Avife  and  every  wife  her  own  husband  ;  but 
in  view  of  the  "  present  (or  imminent)  distress,"  he  advises  his 
readers  not  to  marry.  He  writes  to  the  Corinthians  as  a  man 
would  ■\^T.'ite  to  an  army  about  to  enter  on  a  most  unequal  conflict 
in  an  enemy's  country,  and  for  a  protracted  period.  He  tells 
them  :  '  This  is  no  time  for  you  to  think  of  marriage.  You  have 
a  right  to  marry.  And  in  general  it  is  best  that  all  men  should 
marry.  But  in  your  circumstances  marriage  can  only  lead  to 
embarrassment  and  increase  of  suffering.'  This  limitation  of  his 
advice  not  to  marry,  to  men  in  the  circumstances  of  those  to 
whom  the  advice  is  given,  is  not  only  stated  in  so  many  words  in 
verse  26,  but  it  is  the  only  way  in  which  Paul  can  be  reconciled 
with  himself  or  with  the  general  teaching  of  the  Bible.  It  has 
already  been  remarked,  that  no  one  of  the  sacred  writers,  speaks 
in  more  exalted  terms  of  marriage  than  this  Apostle.  He  rep- 
resents it  as  a  most  ennobling  spiritual  union,  which  raises  a  man 
out  of  himself  and  makes  him  live  for  another  ;  a  union  so  ele- 
vated and  refining  as  to  render  it  a  fit  symbol  of  the  union  be- 
tween Christ  and  his  Church.  Marriage,  according  to  this  Apos- 
tle, does  for  man  in  the  sphere  of  nature,  what  union  with  Christ 
does  for  him  in  the  sphere  of  grace. 

Having  thus  given  it  as  a  matter  of  advice  that  it  was  best, 
under  existing  circumstances,  for    Christians   not   to  marry,  he 

1  That  the  word  nopveta,  as  used  in  Matthew  v.  32,  and  xix.  9,  means  adultery,  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt,  nopicia  is. a  general  term  including  all  unlawful  sexual  cohabitation, 
as  Theodoret  on  Romans  i.  29  (edit.  Halle,  1771),  says,  KaXei  nopieiav  t'tiv  ov  Kara  ya.fj.ov  yi- 
vofxeirif  truiovcriav;  whereas  Moixf'"' is  the  same  offence  when  committed  by  a  married  per- 
son. For  the  definite  use  of  the  word  n-opieta,  see  1  Corinthians  v.  1.  Tholuck  discusses 
the  meaning  of  this  word  as  used  by  Matthew,  at  great  length  in  his  Bertuxrediyt,  3d 
edit.  Hamburg,  1845,  pp.  225-230. 


§  11.]  THE   SEVENTH  COMMANDMENT.  395 

proceeds  to  give  directions  to  those  who  were  already  married. 
Of  these  there  were  two  chisses  :  first,  those  where  both  husband 
and  wife  were  Christians  ;  and  secondly,  those  where  one  of  the 
parties  was  a  believer  and  the  other  an  unbeliever,  i.  e.,  a  Jew  or 
a  heathen.  "With  regard  to  the  former  he  says,  that  as  according 
to  the  law  of  Clirist  the  marriage  is  indissoluble,  neither  party 
had  the  right  to  repudiate  the  other.  But  if,  in  violation  of  the 
law  of  Christ,  a  wife  had  deserted  her  husband,  she  was  bound 
either  to  remain  unmarried,  or  to  be  reconciled  to  her  husband. 
The  Apostle  thus  impliedly  recognizes  the  principle  that  there 
may  be  causes  which  justify  a  woman's  leaving  her  husband, 
which  do  not  justify  a  dissolution  of  the  marriage  bond. 

With  regard  to  those  cases  in  which  one  of  the  parties  was  a 
Christian  and  the  other  an  unbeliever,  he  teaches,  first,  that  such 
marriages  are  lawful,  and,  therefore,  ought  not  to  be  cUssolved. 
But,  secondly,  that  if  the  unbelieving  partner  depart,  ^.  e.,  repu- 
diates the  marriage,  the  believing  partner  is  not  bound  ;  i.  e.,  ia 
no  longer  bound  by  the  marriage  compact.  This  seems  to  be  the 
plain  meaning.  If  the  unbelieving  partner  is  willing  to  continue 
in  the  marriage  relation,  the  believing  party  is  bound  ;  bovmd, 
that  is,  to  be  faithful  to  the  marriage  compact.  If  the  unbeliever 
is  not  wilHng  to  remain,  the  believer  in  tliat  case  is  not  bound  ; 
i.  e.,  bound  by  the  marriage  compact.  In  other  words,  the  mar- 
riage is  thereby  dissolved.  This  passage  is  parallel  to  Romans 
vii.  2.  The  Apostle  there  says,  a  wife  "  is  bound  by  the  law  to 
her  husband,  so  long  as  he  Hveth  ;  but  if  the  husband  be  dead,  she 
is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  husband."  So  here  he  says,  '  A  wife 
is  bound  to  her  husband  if  he  is  willing  to  remain  with  her  ;  but 
if  he  deserts  her,  she  is  free  from  him.'  That  is,  wilful  deser- 
tion annuls  the  marriage  bond.  This  desertion,  however,  must 
be  deliberate  and  final.  This  is  implied  in  the  whole  context. 
The  case  contemplated  is  where  the  unbelieving  husband  refuses 
any  longer  to  regard  his  believing  partner  as  his  wife. 

This  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  given  not  only  by  the 
older  Protestant  interpreters,  but  also  by  the  leading  modern  com- 
mentators, as  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Alford,  and  Wordsworth,  and  in 
the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  Even 
the  Romanists  take  the  same  view.  They  hold,  indeed,  that 
among  Christians  marriage  is  absolutely  indissoluble  except  by 
the  death  of  one  of  the  parties.  But  if  one  of  the  partners  be  an 
unbeliever,  then  they  hold  that  desertion  annuls  the  marriage  con- 
tract.    On  this  point  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  of  Louvain  and  Rome, 


396  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

says,  "  Nota,  Apostolum  perraittere  hoc  casu  non  tantum  tliori 
divortium  sed  etiam  matrimonii  ;  ita  ut  possit  conjux  fidelis  aliud 
matrimonium  inire."  Lapide  refers  to  Augustine,  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas, and  Ambrose  in  support  of  this  opinion.^  The  Canon  Law, 
under  the  title  "  Divortiis  '*  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  AVords- 
"worth's  comment  on  the  passage  is,  "  Although  a  Christian  may 
not  put  away  his  wife,  being  an  unbeliever,  yet  if  the  "svife  desert 
her  husband  (j(<j)pit,€TaC)  he  may  contract  a  second  marriage." 

The  Romanists  indeed  rest  their  sanction  to  remai-riage  in  the 
case  supposed,  on  the  ground  that  there  is  an  essential  difference 
between  marriage  where  one  or  both  the  parties  are  heathen, 
and  marriage  where  both  parties  are  Christians.  This,  however, 
makes  no  difference.  Paul  had  just  said  that  such  unequal  mar- 
riages were  lawful  and  valid.  Neither  party  could  legitimately 
repudiate  or  leave  the  other.  The  ground  of  divorce  indicated 
is  not  difference  of  religion,  but  desertion. 

There  is  a  middle  ground  taken  by  many,  both  ancients  and 
moderns,  in  the  interpretation  of  this  passage.  They  admit  that 
desertion  justifies  '  divorce,  but  not  the  remarriage  of  the  party 
deserted.     To  this  it  may  be  objected,  — 

1.  That  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  divorce.  We 
have  already  seen  that  divorce  among  the  Jews,  as  explained  by 
Christ,  and  as  understood  in  the  apostolic  Church,  was  such  a  sep- 
aration of  man  and  wife  as  dissolved  the  marriage  bond.  This 
idea  was  expressed  in  the  use  of  the  words  a-n-oXveLv,  dcfiuvai,  x^^p'-t^'-v, 
and  these  are  the  words  here  used. 

2.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  the  context  and 
with  the  design  of  the  Apostle.  Among  the  questions  submitted 
to  his  decision,  was  this,  '  Is  it  lawful  for  a  Christian  to  remain 
in  the  marriage  relation  with  an  unbeliever  ?  '  Paul  answers, 
'  Yes  ;  such  marriages  are  lawful  and  valid.  Therefore  if  tlie  un- 
behever  is  willing  to  continue  the  marriage  relation,  the  believer 
remains  bound  ;  but  if  the  unbeliever  refuses  to  continue  the 
marriage,  the  believer  is  no  longer  bound  by  it.'  To  say  that  the 
believer  is  no  longer  bound  to  give  up  his  or  her  religion,  which 
seems  to  be  Neander's  idea,  or  is  not  bound  to  force  himself  or 
herself  upon  an  unwilling  partner,  would  be  nothing  to  the  point. 
No  Christian  could  think  himself  bound  to  give  up  his  religion, 
and  no  one  could  think  it  possible  that  married  life  could  be  con- 
tinued without  the  consent  of  the  parties.  The  question,  in  this 
sense,  was  not  worth  either  asking  or  answering. 

1  Comment.  1  Cor.  Vii.  15;  edit.  Venice,  1717. 


§11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  397 

3.  Desertion,  from  the  nature  of  tlie  offence,  is  a  dissolution  of 
the  marriage  bond.  Why  does  death  dissolve  a  marriage  ?  It  is 
because  it  is  a  final  separation.  So  is  desertion.  Incompatibility 
of  temj)er,  cruelty,  disease,  crime,  insanity,  etc.,  which  human 
laws  often  make  grounds  of  divorce,  are  not  inconsistent  mth  the 
marriage  relation.  A  woman  may  have  a  disagreeable,  a  cruel, 
or  a  wicked  husband,  but  a  man  in  his  grave,  or  one  who  refuses 
to  recognize  iier  as  his  wife,  cannot  be  her  husband. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  that  this  doctrine  makes  marriage  depend  on 
the  option  of  the  parties.  Either  may  desert  the  other  ;  and  then 
the  marriage  is  dissolved.  The  same  objection  was  made  to  our 
Lord's  doctrine  that  adultery  destroys  the  marriage  bond.  It  was 
said  that  if  this  be  so,  either  party  might  dissolve  the  marriage, 
by  committing  that  crime.  As  the  objections  are  the  same,  the 
answer  is  the  same.  As  adultery  is  a  crime,  so  is  desertion  ;  and 
both  should  be  punished.  The  question  is  not  what  these  crimes 
deserve,  but  what  are  their  legitimate  effects,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  on  the  marriage  relation. 

That  desertion  is  a  legitimate  ground  of  divorce,  was  therefore, 
as  before  mentioned,  the  doctrine  held  by  the  Reformers,  Luther, 
Calvin,  and  Zwingie,  and  almost  without  exception  by  all  the 
Protestant  churches.^ 

Doctrine  of  the   Church  of  Rome. 

Marriage  is  thus  defined  in  the  Roman  Catechism  :  "  Matrimo- 
nium  est  viri,  et  mulieris  maritalis  conjunctio  inter  legitimas 
personas,  individuam  vitne  consuetudinem  retinens."  The  clause 
"inter  legitimas  personas,"  is  explained  by  saying,  "  Qui  a  nup- 
tiarum  conjunctione  legibus  omnino  exclusi  sunt,  ii  matrimonium 
mire  non  possunt  ;  neque,  si  ineant,  ratum  est,  exemph  enim  gi'a- 
tia :  qui  intra  quartum  gradum  propinquitate  conjunct!  sunt,  puer- 
que  ante  decimum  quartum  annum,  aut  puella  ante  duodecimum, 
quas  setas  legibus  constituta  est,  ad  matrimonii  justa  foedera  in- 
eunda  apti  esse  non  possunt."  The  clause,  "  Individuam  vitse 
consuetudinem  retinens,"  it  is  said,  "  indissolubilis  vinculi  nsturam 
declarat  quo  vir,  et  uxor  colligantur."  ^ 

Marriage  is  to  be  contemplated  under  two  aspects.  It  is  an 
institution  founded  in  nature,  and  therefore  exists  wherevei  men 

1  See  the  elaborate  article  on  "  Ehe  "  in  Herzog's  EncyMopadie,  and  President  Woolsey's 
recent  Essay  on  Divorce,  New  York,  1869,  chap.  IV.  President  Woolsey  does  not,  for  him- 
self, understand  1  Corinthians  vii.  15,  to  teach  that  desertion  justifies  divorce. 

■^  Catechismus,  ex  Decreto  Condlii  Tridentini,  ad  Parochos,  Pii  V.  Pont.  Max.  Ju$su 
editus,  II.  viii.  quaest.  3 ;  Streitwolf ,  vol.  i.  p.  448. 


398  PART  III.     Ch.  XIX.  — the   law. 

exist.  It  is  a  la'unEul  institution  among  the  heathen  as  well  as 
among  Christians.  But  as  it  is  an  ordinance  of  God  it  has  a 
character  among  those  who  know  the  true  God  and  thus  regard  it, 
far  higher  than  it  has  for  those  who  are  the  worshippers  of  false 
gods.  And,  tlierefore,  marriage,  under  the  old  dispensation,  had  a 
much  higher  character  than  it  had  among  the  heathen.  Never- 
theless, among  Christians  marriage  is  something  far  more  sacred 
than  it  was  under  the  Mosaic  economy.  Christ  had  raised  it  to 
the  dignity  of  a  sacrament.^ 

Marriage  a  Sacrament. 

The  word  sacrament  is  one  of  vague  and  various  meaning. 
Sometimes  it  means  that  which  is  sacred  or  consecrated  ;  some- 
times that  which  has,  or  is  intended  to  have  a  sacred  meaning  ; 
i.  e.,  an  external  sign  of  some  religious  truth  or  grace  ;  sometimes 
a  divinely  appointed  external  rite  instituted  to  be  a  means  of 
grace ;  and  sometimes  a  divinely  appointed  external  sign  that 
contains  and  conveys  the  grace  which  it  signifies.  It  is  in  this 
last  sense  that  the  word  is  used  by  Romanists  ;  and  it  is  in  this 
sense  they  teach  that  marriage  is  a  sacrament.  The  principal 
Scriptural  authority  for  this  doctrine  they  find  in  Ephesians  v.  32, 
where,  as  they  understand  the  passage,  the  words  ro  fxvarrjpLov 
TovTu  fxeya  idTLv,  rendered  in  the  Vulgate,  "  Sacramentum  hoc 
magnum  est,"  are  spoken  of  marriage.  According  to  this  version 
and  interpretation,  the  Apostle  does  indeed  directly  assert  that 
marriage  is  a  mystery.  But  (1.)  The  words  do  not  refer  to 
marriage,  but  to  the  mystical  union  between  Christ  and  his  people 
as  appears  from  the  Apostle's  own  explanation  in  the  following 
clause  :  "  I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the  Church."  The  two 
subjects,  the  union  of  husband  and  wife  and  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people,  had  been  so  combined  and  interwoven  in  the 
preceding  verses,  that  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  determine 
to  which  the  words,  "This  is  a  great  mystery,"  were  intended 
to  refer,  had  not  the  Apostle  himself  told  us.  But  (2.)  Even 
if  the  Apostle  does  say  that  the  marriage  union  is  a  great  mystery, 
which  in  one  sense  it  clearly  is,  that  would  not  prove  that  it  is  a 
sacrament.  The  word  "  mystery,"  as  used  in  the  Bible,  means 
something  hidden  or  unknoAvn ;  something  which  can  be  known 
only  by  divine  revelation.  Thus  the  Gospel  itself  is  repeatedly  . 
said  to  be  a  mystery  (Eph.  iii.  3-9)  ;  the  future  conversion  of  the 
Jews  is  said  to  be  a  mystery  (Rom.  xi.  25)  ;  the  incarnation  is 

1  Catechismus  Romanus,  ii.  viii.  quaest.  1-t,  16;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  451-457. 


I  11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  399 

said  to  be  the  great  mystery  of  godliness  (1  Tim.  iii.  16) ;  and 
anything  obscure  or  enigmatical  is  called  a  mystery  (Rev.  xvii. 
5)  ;  thus  the  mystery  of  the  seven  candlesticks  is  their  secret 
meaning.  If,  therefore,  Paul  says  that  marriage  is  a  great  mys- 
tery in  the  sense  that  no  one  can  fully  understand  what  is  meant 
when  God  says  that  husband  and  Avife  are  one,  or  even  in  the  sense 
that  marriage  has  a  sacred  import,  that  it  is  a  symbol  of  a  great 
religious  truth,  this  is  what  all  Protestants  admit  and  what  is 
clearly  taught  in  Scripture.  Paul  had  himself  just  set  forth  mar- 
riage as  the  great  analogue  of  the  mystical  union  of  Christ  and 
the  Church.  (3.)  Admitting  still  further  that  marriage  was  prop- 
erly called  "  sacramentum,"  that  would  prove  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose. That  Latin  word  had  not  the  sense  attached  to  it  by  Ro- 
manists until  long  after  the  apostolic  age.  It  has  not  that  sense 
even  in  the  Vulgate.  In  1  Timothy  iii.  IG,  the  manifestation  of 
God  in  the  flesh  is  declared  to  be  the  "  great  mystery  of  godli- 
ness," which  the  Vulgate  translates  "  magnum  pietatis  sacramen- 
tum ;  "  but  Romanists  do  not  hold  that  ithe  incarnation  is  a  sacra- 
ment in  the  ecclesiastical  sense  of  that  term.  The  Latin  Church, 
however,  having  gradually  come  to  attach  to  the  word  the  idea  of 
a  divinely  appointed  rite  or  ceremony,  which  signifies,  contains, 
and  conveys  grace,  and  finding,  as  the  words  were  understood, 
marriage  declared  in  Ephesians  v.  32  to  be  a  "  sacramentum,"  it 
came  to  teach  that  it  was  a  sacrament  in  the  same  sense  as  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Romanists  then  teach  that  marriage  is  a  sacrament  not  merely 
because  it  is  the  sign  or  symbol  of  the  union  of  Christ  and  his 
Church.  The  Roman  Catechism  says,^  (1).  That  no  one  should 
doubt  "  quod  scilicet  viri,  et  mulieris  conjunctio,  cujus  Deus  auctor 
est,  sanctissimi  illius  vinculi,  quo  Christus  dominus  cum  Ecclesia 
conjungitur,  sacramentum,  id  est,  sacrum  signum  sit."  If  this 
were  all,  no  Protestant  could  object.  (2).  But  Romanists  teach 
that  marriage  is  a  sacrament  because  it  not  only  signifies  but  also 
confers  grace.  The  ceremony,  including  the  consent  of  the  par- 
ties, the  benediction,  and  the  intention  of  the  priest,  renders  the 
bride  and  groom  holy.  It  sanctifies  them.  "  Ex  opere  operato," 
it  transforms  mere  natural  human  love  into  that  holy  spiritual 
affection  which  renders  their  union  a  fit  emblem  of  the  union  of 
Christ  and  the  Church.  On  this  point  the  Council  of  Trent 
says: 2  "  Gratiam,  vero,  quaj  naturalem  ilium  amorem  perficeret, 

1  II.  viii.  quffist.  15;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  455,  456. 

2  Sess.  XXIV. ;  Ibid.   vol.  i.  p.  89. 


400  PART  III.     Cii.  XIX. —  THE   LAW. 

et  inclissolubilem  miitatem  confirmaret,  conjugesque  sanctificaret, 
ipse  Christus,  venerabilium  sacramentorum  institutor,  atque  per- 
fector,  sua  nobis  passione  promeruit."  It  would  be  a  gi'eat  bless- 
ing if  this  were  so.  Facts,  however,  prove  that  the  sacramental 
efficacy  of  matrimony  no  more  so  sanctifies  husbands  and  wives 
as  to  make  their  mutual  love  like  the  holy  love  of  Christ  for  his 
Church,  than  baptism  confers  (to  those  not  opposing  an  obstacle) 
all  the  benefits,  subjective  and  objective,  of  the  redemption  of 
Christ.  If  the  sacramentarian  theory  were  true,  all  Christians 
would  be  perfect  and  Christendom  would  be  paradisiacal. 

Marriage  between  Christians,  according  to  Romanists,  is  in- 
dissoluble. Neither  adultery  nor  desertion  justifies  divorce. 
Death  alone  can  sever  the  bond.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from 
this,  however,  that  marriage  is  a  more  sacred  institution  among 
Romanists  than  among  Protestants.  Any  departure  from  Scrip- 
tural rules  is  sure  to  work  evil.  The  denial  that  adultery  de- 
stroys the  marriage  bond,  leads  naturally,  and  in  fact  has  led, 
not  only  to  render  that  crime  more  frequent,  but  also  to  un- 
scriptural  devices  to  remedy  the  injustice  of  forcing  a  husband 
or  wife  to  maintain  the  conjugal  relation  with  a  guilty  partner. 
One  of  these  devices  is  the  multiplication  of  the  causes  of  separa- 
tion "  a  mensa  et  thoro  "  ;  and  another  still  more  unscriptural,  is 
the  multiplying  the  reasons  which  render  marriage  null  and  void 
"  ab  initio."  No  less  than  sixteen  causes  which  render  mar- 
riages null  are  enumerated  by  Romish  theologians.^ 

The  causes  which  justify  separation  without  divorce,  are 
TOWS,  adultery,  apostasy,  and  crimes.  Under  the  last  head  they 
include  cruelty  and  prodigality.  If  the  parties  had  not  been 
baptized,  divorce  "  a  vinculo "  was  allowed  when  one  of  the 
partners  became  a  Romanist  and  the  other  refused  to,  and  also 
for  any  serious  crime.  The  whole  matter  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
Church,  which  claims  the  right  of  making  and  unmaking  impedi- 
ments to  marriage  at  pleasure.  "  Si  quis  dixerit  Ecclesiam  non 
potuisse  constituere  impedimenta,  matrimonium  dirimentia,  vel 
in  iis  constituendis  errasse ;  anathema  sit."^     At  one  period  the 

1  These  sixteen  causes  are  expressed  in  the  following  lines:  — 

"Error,  conditio,  votum,  cognatio,  crimen, 

Cultus  disparitas,  vis,  ordo,  ligamen,  honestas, 

Aniens,  affinis,  si  clandestinus  et  impos, 

Si  niulier  sit  rapta,  loco  ncc  reddita  tuto; 

Si  impubes,  ni  forte  potentia  suppleafc  annos: 

Ha!C  socianda  vetant  connubia,  facta  retractant." 
—  Dens,  Theologia  Moralis  et  Dogmatica,  De  Matrimonio,  N.   70,  edit.  Dublin,  1833| 
vol.  vii.  p.  194. 

2  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  xxiv.  canon  4 ;  Streitwolf ,  vol.  i.  p.  90. 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  401 

Church  of  Rome  made  consanguinity  within  the  seventh  degree 
an  impediment  to  marriage ;  at  present  it  forbids  marriage 
within  the  fourth  degree  inchisive.  "  The  old  Catholic  theory 
of  marriage,"  says  President  Woolsey,  "  was  practically  a  failure 
in  all  its  parts,  in  its  ascetic  fro^vn  on  marriage,  in  its  demand 
from  the  clergy  of  an  abstinence  not  required  from  the  Christian 
laity,  in  teaching  that  nothing  but  death  could  release  the  mar- 
ried pair  from  their  obligations.  When  it  sought  for  impractic- 
able virtue,  and  forbade  to  some  what  God  had  allowed  to  all, 
it  opened  a  fountain  of  vice  with  the  smallest  incitement  to 
virtue."  ^ 

Laws  of  Protestant  Countries  concerning  Divorce. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  Protestants,  making  the  Scrip- 
tures their  guide,  taught  that  the  dissolution  of  the  bond  of  mar- 
riage was  allowable  only  for  the  two  offences  of  adultery  and 
wilful  desertion.  So  far  as  the  churches  and  their  confessions 
are  concerned,  this  is  still  the  doctrine  of  almost  all  Protestant  de- 
nominations. When,  however,  marriage  came  to  be  regarded  as 
essentially  a  civil  contract,  it  gradually  fell  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  state,  and  laws  were  passed  varying  in  different  countries, 
as  legislators  were  influenced  by  mere  views  of  justice  or  expe- 
diency. The  legislation  of  all  European  nations  was  gi-eatly 
iufluenced  by  the  old  Roman  law  ;  and,  therefore,  when  mar- 
riage was  removed  from  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  Church, 
the  laws  concerning  it  were  more  or  less  adopted  from  that 
ancient  code.  The  Roman  laws  concerning  divorce  were  very 
lax.  Mutual  consent  was,  even  after  the  Roman  emperors 
became  Christian,  regarded  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  dissolving 
the  bond  of  marriage.  When  the  Church  gained  the  ascendancy 
over  the  State,  and  the  pope  became  the  virtual  legislator  of 
Christendom,  divorce  for  any  reason  was  forbidden ;  and  when 
and  where  the  pope  in  his  turn  was  dethroned,  there  was  a  gen- 
eral tendency  to  return  to  the  laxity  of  the  Roman  legislation. 

England. 

England  was  an  exception  to  this  rule.  It  discarded  less  of 
popish  usages  than  any  other  Protestant  nation.  For  a  long 
time  after  the  Reformation  no  special  law  concerning  divorce 
was  passed.  The  ecclesiastical  courts  could  decree  separation 
"  a  mensa  et  thoro,"  but  a  full  divorce  "  a  vinculo  "  could  be 

1  Essay  on  Divorce,  by  Theodore  D.  Woolsey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  New  York,  1869,  p.  127. 
VOL.  III.  26 


402  PART  in.     Cii.  XIX. —THE  LAW. 

obtained  only  by  a  special  act  of  Parliament.  Under  the  reign 
of  the  present  sovereign  all  such  questions  were  removed  from 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  and  remitted  to  a  civil  tribunal.  That 
tribunal  is  authorized  to  grant  judicial  separation  "  a  mensa  et 
thoro  "  on  the  ground  of  adultery,  or  cruelty,  or  desertion  with- 
out just  cause  for  two  years  and  upward ;  and  dissolution  of 
marriage  on  account  of  simple  adultery  on  the  part  of  the  wife, 
or  aggravated  adultery  on  the  part  of  the  husband.  Such  divorce 
gives  both  parties  Hberty  to  contract  a  new  marriage.  "  On  the 
whole,  with  serious  defects,"  says  President  Woolsey,  "  it  seems 
to  us  to  be  an  excellent  law.  It  does  honour  to  the  Christian 
country  where  it  is  in  force,  and  it  is  certainly  a  great  improve- 
ment on  the  former  mode  of  regulating  divorce  in  England."  ^ 
It  may  be  a  good  law  in  comparison  with  the  lawlessness  that 
preceded  it,  and  in  comparison  with  the  lax  legislation  of  other 
Protestant  nations,  but  it  is  not  good  so  far  as  it  is  not  con- 
formed to  the  Scriptures.  The  New  Testament  makes  no  such 
distinction  as  is  made  in  this  law,  between  adultery  on  the  part 
of  the  wife  and  the,  same  offence  on  the  part  of  the  husband. 
And  it  is  not  good  in  not  allomng  wilful  desertion  to  be  a  legiti- 
mate ground  of  divorce,  if,  as  Protestants  almost  universally 
beheve,  the  Bible  teaches  the  contrary. 

France. 

In  France  the  laws  of  the  Romish  Church  were  in  force  mitil 
the  Revolution.  That  event  threw  everything  into  confusion, 
and  the  sanctity  of  marriage  was  in  a  great  degree  disregarded. 
Under  the  empire  of  the  first  Napoleon,  the  civil  code  allowed 
divorce,  (1.)  for  simple  adultery  on  the  part  of  the  wife  ;  (2.)  for 
aggravated  adultery  on  the  part  of  the  husband  ;  (3.)  for  outrages 
and  cruelty  ;  (4.)  for  the  condemnation  of  either  party  to  an  in- 
famous punishment ;  and  (5.)  for  mutual  persistent  consent.  The 
restoration  of  the  Bourbons  put  an  end  :;o  these  laws  and  led  to 
the  entire  prohibition  of  divorce. 

Germany. 

Among  the  Protestants  of  Germany,  the  views  of  the  Reformers, 
as  a  general  thing,  controlled  the  action  of  the  several  states  on 
this  subject  until  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  the  laws  of  marriage  were  greatly  relaxed.  Goschen  at- 
tributes this  change  in  a  great  measure  to  the  influence  of  Tho- 

1  Essay  on  Divorce,  p.  178. 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  403 

masiiis  (f  1728),  who  regarded  marriage  as  merely  a  civil  institu- 
tion  designed  for  tlie  purposes  of  the  state,  and  which,  therefore, 
might  be  set  aside  whenever  it  failed  to  answer  the  desired  end.^ 
The  present  law  of  Prussia,  although  an  improvement  on  the 
previous  legislation,  is  far  below  the  Scriptural  standard.  Be- 
sides adultery  and  ^vilful  desertion,  it  makes  many  other  offences 
grounds  of  divorce,  for  example,  plots  endangering  the  life  or 
health  of  the  other  party ;  gross  injuries ;  dangerous  incompati- 
bility of  temper ;  crimes  entailing  an  infamous  punishment ;  ha- 
bitual drunkenness  and  extravagance  ;  and  dehberate  mutual  con- 
sent, if  there  be  no  children  fruit  of  the  marriage  to  be  dissolved. 

The    United  States. 

The  laws  of  the  several  states  of  this  Union  on  the  subject  of 
divorce  vary  from  the  extreme  of  strictness  to  the  extreme  of 
laxness.  In  South  Carolina  no  divorce  has  ever  been  given.  The 
effect  of  refusing  to  regard  adultery  as  a  dissolution  of  the  mar- 
riage bond  is,  as  proved  by  the  experience  of  Catholic  countries, 
to  lead  the  people  to  regard  that  crime  as  a  pardonable  offence. 
It  was  indictable.  In  New  York  adultery  is  the  only  ground  of 
divorce  ;  but  separation  from  bed  and  board  is  gi'anted  for  cruelty, 
desertion,  and  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  husband  to  make  pro- 
vision for  the  support  of  the  wife.  In  several  of  the  other  states, 
besides  adultery  and  desertion,  many  other  grounds  are  made 
sufficient  to  justify  divorce  ;  of  these  grounds  the  following  are  the 
principal :  imprisonment,  neglect  to  provide  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  wife,  habitual  drunkenness,  and  cruelty.  In  some  states 
the  whole  matter  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  courts.  In  the 
laws  of  Maine  it  is  said  that  divorce  "  a  vinculo  "  ma}^  be  granted 
by  any  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  "  when  in  the  exercise  of  a 
sound  discretion,  he  deems  it  reasonable  and  proper,  conducive  to 
domestic  harmony,  and  consistent  with  the  peace  and  morahty  of 
society."  The  law  of  Indiana  says  divorce  may  be  granted  for 
any  cause  for  which  the  court  deems  it  proper.^  In  Rhode  Island 
to  the  enumeration  of  specific  causes  is  added,  "  and  for  any  other 
gross  misbehaviour  and  wickedness  in  either  of  the  parties,  repug- 
nant to  and  in  violation  of  the  marriage  covenant."  In  Connect- 
icut  the  statute  passed  in  1849  allows   divorce  for   "  any  such 

1  See  his  elaborate  article  on  "  Ehe  "  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyMopddie,  Stuttgart  and  Ham- 
burg, 1855,  vol.  iii.  p.  703. 

2  Bishop,  Marriage  and  Divorce,  book  vii.  chap.  xl.  §§  827  [542],  830  [544],  4th  e»liL 
Boston,  18G4,  vol.  i. 


404  PART  III.     Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

misconduct  as  permanently  destroys  tlie  happiness  of  the  petitioner 
and  defeats  the  purpose  of  the  conjugal  relation."  ^ 

Duty  of  the   Church  and  of  its   Officers. 

There  are  certain  principles  bearing  on  this  subject  which  will 
be  generally  conceded,  (1.)  Every  legislative  body  is  bound  to 
conform  its  enactments  to  the  moral  law.  This  may  be  assumed 
as  a  self-evident  proposition.  (2.)  Every  Christian  legislature  is 
bound  to  conform  its  action  to  the  laws  of  Christianity.  By  a 
Christian  legislature  is  meant  one  which  makes  laws  for  a  Chris- 
tian people.  It  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  represent  them  as 
Christians,  to  be  their  agents  in  teaching,  propagating,  or  en- 
forcing the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  enough  to 
constitute  it  a  Christian  legislature  that  the  great  body  of  its 
constituents  who  are  bound  to  obey  its  laws  are  Christians.  No 
one  hesitates  to  say  that  Italy,  Spain,  and  France  are  Catholic 
countries  ;  or  that  England,  Sweden,  and  Prussia  are  Protestant. 
As  all  the  powers  of  legislatures  are  derived  from  the  people,  it 
is  irrational  to  suppose  that  the  people  would  delegate  to  their 
representatives  authority  to  violate  their  religion.  No  legislature 
of  a  Christian  state,  therefore,  can  have  the  right  to  make  laws 
inconsistent  with  the  Christian  religion.  This  principle,  so  rea- 
sonable and  obvious,  is  conceded  in  the  abstract.  No  state  in  this 
Union  would  dare  to  legahze  adultery  or  bigamy.  Before  the  Ref- 
ormation all  questions  concerning  marriage  were  under  the  juris- 
dictio-n  of  the  Church ;  after  that  event  they  were,  in  Protestant 
countries,  referred  to  the  authorities  of  the  state.  "  It  never, 
however,"  says  Stahl,  "  entered  the  minds  of  the  Reformers,  to 
assert  that  marriage  was  purely  a  civil  institution,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  civil,  and  not  religious  laws,  or  that  the  testimony  of 
the  Church  as  to  the  divine  laws  of  marriage  was  not  a  binding 
rule  for  the  legislation  of  the  state."  ^  And  in  still  more  general 
terms  he  declares  that  "  What  the  Church  as  such  [the  body  of 
Christians]  testifies  to  be  an  unchangeable  divine  law,  '  jus  divi- 
num,'  and  upholds  within  its  sphere,  is  the  impassable  rule  and 
hmit  for  the  legislation  of  a  Christian  state."  ^ 

3.  No  act  of  any  human  legislature  contrary  to  the  moral  law 
can  bind  any  man,  and  no  such  act  contrary  to  the  law  of  Christ 
can  bind  any  Christian.     If,  therefore,  a  human  tribunal  annuls 

1  See  Woolsey,    Essay  on  Divorce,  New  York,  18(59,  p.  205. 

2  Die  Philosophie  des  Rechls,  Redds-  und  Staatslehre,  I.  iii.  3.  1.  §  69,  4th  edit.  Heidel- 
berg, 1870,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  p.  441. 

«  Ibid.  §  68;  p.  435. 


\ 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  405 

a  marriage  for  any  reason  other  than  those  assigned  in  the  Bible, 
the  marriage  is  not  thereby  dissolved.  In  the  judgment  of  Chris- 
tians it  remains  in  full  force  ;  and  they  are  bound  so  to  regard  it. 
And  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  state  pronounces  a  marriage  valid, 
which  the  Bible  declares  to  be  invalid,  in  the  view  of  Christians 
it  is  invalid.  There  is  no  help  for  this.  Christians  cannot  give 
up  their  convictions ;  nor  can  they  renounce  their  allegiance  to 
Christ.  This  state  of  conflict  between  the  laws  and  the  con- 
science of  the  people,  is  the  necessary  consequence,  if  a  body 
making  laws  for  a  Clu'istian  people  disregards  an  authority  which 
the  people  recognize  as  divine. 

4.  The  laws  of  many  of  the  states  of  this  Union,  on  the  mat- 
ter of  divorce,  are  unscriptural  and  immoral.  If  the  former, 
they  are  the  latter  in  the  view  of  all  who  believe  in  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Bible.  If  the  Scriptures  be  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  they  contain  the  only  standard  of  right 
and  wrong.  The  moral  law  is  not  something  self-imposed.  It 
is  not  what  any  man  or  body  of  men  may  think  right  or  expe- 
dient. It  is  the  revealed  will  of  God  as  to  human  conduct ;  and 
whatever  is  contrary  to  that  will  is  morally  wrong.  If  this  be  so, 
then  there  can  be  no  doubt  tluiL  the  divorce  laws  of  many  of  oirr 
states  are  immoral.  They  contravene  the  law  of  God.  They 
annul  marriages  for  other  reasons  than  those  allowed  in  Scripture, 
and  even,  in  some  cases,  at  the  discretion  of  the  courts.  They 
pronounce  persons  not  to  be  man  and  wife,  who  by  the  law  of 
God  are  man  and  wife.  They  pronounce  those  to  be  legally  mar- 
ried, whose  union  Christ  declares  to  be  adulterous.  That  is,  they 
legalize  adultery.  This  is  a  conclusion  which  cannot  be  avoided, 
except  by  denying  either  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  or  that  it 
legislates  on  the  subject  of  marriage.  If  marriage  were  a  inere 
civil  compact,  with  regard,  to  which  the  Scriptures  gave  no  special 
directions,  it  might  be  regulated  by  the  state  according  to  its 
views  of  wisdom  or  expediency.  But  if  it  be  an  ordinance  of 
God ;  if  He  has  revealed  his  will  as  to  who  may,  and  who  may 
not  intermarry,  and  who,  when  married,  may  or  may  not  be  re- 
leased from  the  marriage  bond,  then  the  state  has  no  more  right 
to  alter  these  laws  than  it  has  to  alter  the  decalogue,  and  to 
legalize  idolatry  or  blasphemy.  There  is  no  use  in  covering  this 
matter  over.  It  is  -svronjj  to  resjard  anti-Christian  laws  as  mat- 
ters  of  small  importance. 

The  action  of  the  state  in  this  matter  is  not  merely  negative. 
It  does  not  simply  overlook  or  refuse  to  punish  the  violation  of 


406  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

tlie  Scriptural  law  of  divorce,  bnt  it  intervenes  by  its  positive 
action,  and  declares  that  certain  parties  are  not  man  and  wife,  be- 
tween whom,  according  to  the  law  of  God,  the  bond  of  marriage 
still  subsists.  It  condemns  bigamy,  but  it  sanctions  what  the 
Bible  pronounces  bigamy.  The  law  of  the  state  and  the  law  of 
God,  in  this  regard,  are  so  opposed  to  each  other,  that  he  who 
obeys  the  one  violates  the  other. 

5.  As  the  Church  and  its  officers  are  under  the  highest  obliga- 
tions to  obey  the  law  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  where  the  action 
of  the  state  conflicts  with  that  law,  such  action  must  be  disre- 
garded. If  a  person  be  divorced  on  other  than  Scriptural  grounds 
and  marries  again,  such  person  cannot  consistently  be  received  to 
the  fellowship  of  the  Church.  If  a  minister  be  called  upon  to 
solemnize  the  marriage  of  a  person  improperly  divorced,  he  can- 
not, in  consistency  with  his  allegiance  to  Christ,  perform  the  ser- 
vice. This  conflict  between  the  civil  and  divine  law  is  a  great 
evil,  and  has  often,  especially  in  Prussia,  given  rise  to  great  dif- 
ficulty. 

As  all  denominations  of  Christians,  Romanists  and  Protestants, 
are  of  one  mind  on  this  subject,  it  is  matter  of  astonishment  that 
these  objectionable  divorce  laws  are  allowed  to  stand  on  the 
statute-books  of  so  many  of  our  states.  This  fact  proves  either 
that  public  attention  has  not  to  a  sufficient  degree  been  called  to 
the  subject,  or  that  the  public  conscience  is  lamentably  blinded  or 
seared.  The  remedy  is  with  the  Church,  which  is  the  witness  of 
God  on  earth,  bound  to  testify  to  his  truth  and  to  uphold  his  law. 
If  Christians,  in  their  individual  capacity  and  in  their  Church 
courts,  would  unite  in  their  efforts  to  arouse  and  guide  pubhc 
sentiment  on  this  subject,  there  is  little  doubt  that  these  objec- 
tionable laws  would  be  repealed. 

The  Social  Evil. 

This  is  not  a  subject  to  be  discussed  in  these  pages  ;  a  few  re- 
marks, however,  in  reference  to  it  may  not  be  out  of  place. 

1.  It  is  obviously  Utopian  to  expect  that  all  violations  of  the 
seventh  commandment  can  be  prevented,  any  more  than  that  the 
laws  against  theft  or  falsehood  should  never  be  disregarded. 

2.  The  history  of  the  world  shows  that  the  instinct  which  leads 
to  the  evil  in  question  can  never  be  kept  within  proper  limits,  ex- 
cept by  moral  principle,  or  by  marriage. 

3.  To  these  two  means  of  correction,  therefore,  the  efforts  of 
the  friends  of  virtue  should  be  principall}'  directed.     There  can 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  407 

be  no  efficient  moral  cnlture  without  religious  training.  If  we 
would  reform  our  fellow-men,  we  must  bring  and  keep  them  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  their  lives  under  the  influence  of  the 
truth  and  ordinances  of  God  ;  to  accomplish  this  work  is  the 
duty  assigned  to  the  Church.  Besides  this  general  moral  culture, 
there  is  needed  special  effort  to  produce  a  proper  public  sentiment 
with  regard  to  this  special  evil.  So  long  as  the  seventh  com- 
mandment can  be  violated  without  any  serious  loss  of  self-respect 
or  of  public  confidence,  one  of  the  strongest  barriers  against  vice  is 
broken  down.  If  loss  of  character  as  certainly  followed  a  breach 
of  the  seventh  commandment,  as  it  follows  theft  or  perjury,  the 
evil  would  be  to  a  good  degree  abated.  This  is  already  the  fact 
with  regard  to  certain  classes.  It  is  so  with  regard  to  women ; 
and  it  is  so  in  the  case  of  the  clergy.  If  a  minister  of  the  gospel 
be  guilty  of  this  offence,  he  is  as  certainly  and  effectually  ruined 
as  he  would  be  by  the  commission  of  any  other  crime  short  of 
murder.  The  same  moral  law,  however,  binds  all  men.  Theft 
in  the  case  of  one  man  is,  in  its  essential  character,  just  what  it 
is  in  the  case  of  any  other  man. 

4.  The  divinely  appointed  preventive  of  the  social  evil  is  laid 
down  in  1  Corinthians  vii.  2 :  "  Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife, 
and  let  every  woman  have  her  own  husband."  That  there  are  se- 
rious difficulties,  in  the  present  state  of  society,  in  the  way  of  fre- 
quent and  early  marriages,  cannot  be  denied.  The  principal  of  these 
is  no  doubt  the  expensive  style  of. living  generally  adopted.  Young 
people  find  it  impossible  to  commence  life  with  the  conveniences 
and  luxuries  to  which  they  have  been  accustomed  in  their  fathers' 
houses,  and  therefore  marriage  is  neglected  or  postponed.  With 
regard  to  tlie  poorer  classes,  provision  might  be  made  to  endow 
young  women  of  good  character,  so  as  to  enable  them  to  begin 
their  married  life  in  comfort.  Arrangements  may  also  be  made 
in  various  ways  to  lessen  the  expense  of  family  Hving.  The  end 
to  be  accomplished  is  to  facilitate  marriage.  Those  who  are  so 
happy  as  to  find  in  a  dictum  of  Scripture  the  ultimate  reason  and 
the  highest  motive,  may  see  the  end  to  be  attained,  although,  as 
in  the  present  case,  they  are  obliged  to  leave  the  means  of  its  ac- 
complishment to  experts  in  social  science. 

Prohibited  Marriages. 
That  certain  marriages  are  prohibited  is  almost  the  universal 
judgment  of  manldnd.     Among  the  ancient  Persians  and  Egyp- 
tians, indeed,  the  nearest  relations  were  allowed  to  intermarry, 


408  PART  in.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

and  in  the  corrupt  period  of  the  Roman  Empire,  equal  hixness 
more  or  less  prevailed.  These  isolated  facts  do  not  invalidate  the 
argument  from  the  general  judgment  of  mankind.  What  all  men 
think  to  be  Avrong,  must  be  wrong.  This  unanimity  cannot  be 
accounted  for,  except  by  assuming  that  the  judgment  in  which 
men  thus  agree  is  founded  on  the  constitution  of  their  nature,  and 
that  constitution  is  the  work  of  God.  There  are  cases,  therefore, 
in  which  the  "  vox  populi  "  is  the  "  vox  Dei." 

The   Ground  or  Reason  of  such  Prohibitions. 

The  reason  why  mankind  so  generally  condemn  the  intermar- 
riage of  near  relations  cannot  be  physical.  Physiology  is  not 
taught  by  instinct.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only  an  unworthy,  but  is 
an  altogether  unsatisfactory  assumption,  that  such  marriages  are 
forbidden  because  they  tend  to  the  deterioration  of  the  race.  The 
fact  assumed  may,  or  may  not  be  true  ;  but  if  admitted,  it  is 
utterly  insufficient  to  accou.nt  for  the  condemnatory  judgment  in 
question. 

The  two  most  natural  and  obvious  reasons  why  the  intermar- 
riage of  near  relations  is  forbidden  are,  first,  that  the  natural 
affection  which  relatives  have  for  each  other  is  incompatible  with 
conjugal  love.  They  cannot  coexist.  The  latter  is  a  violation 
and  destruction  of  the  former.  Tliis  reason  need  only  be  stated. 
It  requires  no  illustration.  These  natural  affections  are  not  only 
healthful,  but  in  the  higher  grades  of  relationship,  even  sacred. 
The  second  ground  for  such  prohibitions  is  a  regard  to  domestic 
purity.  When  persons  are  so  nearly  related  to  each  other  as  to 
justify  their  living  togetlier  as  one  family,  they  should  be  sacred 
one  to  the  other.  If  this  were  not  the  case,  evil  could  hardly 
fail  to  occur,  when  young  people  grow  up  in  the  familiarity  of 
domestic  life.  The  slightest  inspection  of  the  details  of  the  law 
as  laid  down  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  shows  that 
this  principle  underlies  many  of  its  specifications. 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his  work  on  the  law  of  Moses,  makes  this 
the  only  reason  for  the  Levitical  prohibitions.  He  goes  to  the 
extreme  of  denying  that  "  nearness  of  kin  "  is  in  itself  any  bar 
to  marriage.  His  views  had  great  influence,  not  only  on  public 
opinion,  but  even  on  legislation  in  Germany.  That  influence, 
however,  passed  away  when  a  deeper  moral  and  religious  feeling 
gained  ascendancy.^ 

1  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  .Ifoses.  By  Sir  John  Davitl  IMichaelis,  Professor  of 
Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Gi'ittingen.  Translated  by  Alexander  Smith,  D.  D.,  London 
1814,  vol.  ii.  arts.  104-108/pp.  54-7G. 


§11.1  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  409 

Augustine's   Theory. 

Augustine  advanced  a  theory  on  this  subject,  which  still  has  its 
earnest  advocates.  He  held  that  the  design  of  all  these  prohibi- 
tory laws  was  to  widen  the  circle  of  the  social  affections.  Brothers 
and  sisters  are  bound  together  by  mutual  love.  Should  they  inter- 
marry the  circle  is  not  extended.  If  they  choose  husbands  and 
wives  from  among  strangers,  a  larger  number  of  persons  are  in- 
cluded in  the  bonds  of  mutual  love.  "  Habita  est  ratio  rectissima 
charitatis,  ut  homines  quibus  esset  utiHs  atque  honesta  concordia, 
diversarum  necessitudinum  vinculis  necterentur  ;  nee  unus  in  uno 
multas  haberet,  sed  singulse  spargerentur  in  singulos  ;  ac  sic  ad 
socialem  vitam  diligentius  colligandam  plurim;e  plurimos  obti- 
nerent."  Thus  it  would  come  to  pass,  "  Ut  unus  homo  haberet 
alteram  sororem,  alteram  uxorem,  alteram  consobrinam,  alteram 
patrem,  alteram  avunculum,  alterum  socerum,  alteram  matrem, 
alteram  amitam,  alteram  socrum  :  atque  ita  se  non  in  paucitate 
coarctatum,  sed  latins  atque  numerosius  propinquitatibus  crebris 
vinculum  sociale  diffunderet."  ^ 

A  writer  in  Hengstenberg's  "  Evangelische  Kirchen-Zeitung," 
adopts  and  elaborately  vindicates  this  theory.  He  endeavours  to 
show  that  it  answers  all  the  criteria  by  which  any  theory  on  the 
subject  should  be  tested.  These  marriages  are  called  "  abom- 
inations ; "  and  he  asks.  Is  it  not  shameful  that  the  benevolent 
ordinance  of  God  for  extending  the  circle  of  the  social  affections 
should  be  counteracted  ?  They  are  called  ''  confusion,"  because 
they  unite  those  whom  God  commands  to  remain  separate.  It 
also  accounts  for  the  propriety  of  the  intermarriage  of  brothers 
and  sisters  in  the  family  of  Adam  ;  for  in  the  beginning  the  circle 
of  affection  did  not  admit  of  being  enlarged.  It  even  meets  the 
case  of  the  Levirate  law  which  bound  a  man  to  marry  the  child- 
less widow  of  his  brother.  The  law  which  forbids  the  marriage 
of  relations,  holds  only  where  the  relationship  is  close.  There 
must,  therefore,  be  cases  just  on  the  line  beyond  which  relation- 
ship is  no  bar  to  marriage.  And  ^vith  regard  to  those  just  within 
the  hne,  there  must  be  considerations  which  sometimes  outweigh 
the  objections  to  a  given  marriage.  That  God  dispensed  with 
the  law  forbidding  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  brother's 
Avidow,  when  the  brotlier  died  without  children,  this  German 
writer  regards  as  impossil)le.    "  Evil,"  he  says,  "  may  be  tolerated, 

1  De  Civitate  Dei,  xv.  xvi.  1 ;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  vii.  pp.  633, 
634. 


410  PART  ni.     Ch.   XIX.  —  THE   LAW. 

but  not  commanded."  He  adds  tliat  it  provokes  a  smile  (man 
muss  es  naiv  nennen)  tliat  Gerhard  finds  an  analogy  between  the 
case  in  question  and  the  permission  given  to  the  Israelites  to  de- 
spoil the  Egyptians.^  It  is  probable  that  the  venerable  Gerhard 
would  sniile  at  the  writer's  criticisms.  In  the  first  place,  God 
can  no  more  allow  evil  than  He  can  command  it.  An  act  other- 
wise evil,  ceases  to  be  so  when  He  either  allows  (^.  e.,  sanctions) 
it,  or  commands  it.  If  He  commands  a  man  to  be  put  to  death, 
it  ceases  to  be  murder  to  put  him  to  death.  There  are  two  prin- 
ciples of  morality  generally  accepted  and  clearly  Scriptural ;  one 
of  which  is,  that  any  of  those  moral  laws  which  are  founded,  not 
on  the  immutable  nature  of  God,  but  upon  the  relations  of  men 
in  the  present  state  of  existence,  may  be  set  aside  by  the  divine 
law-giver  whenever  it  seems  good  in  his  sight ;  just  as  God 
under  the  old  dispensation  set  aside  the  original  monogamic  law 
of  marriage.  Polygamy  was  not  sinful  as  long  as  God  permitted 
it.  The  same  principle  is  involved  in  the  words  of  Christ,  God 
loves  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.  When  two  laws  conflict,  the 
•weaker  yields  to  the  stronger.  It  is  wrong  to  labour  on  the  Sab- 
bath, but  any  amount  of  labour  on  that  day  becomes  a  duty,  if 
necessary  to  save  life.  In  the  case  of  the  Levirate  law,  the  pro- 
hibition to  marry  a  brother's  widow,  yielded  to  what  imder  the 
Mosaic  economy  was  regarded  as  a  higher  obligation,  that  is,  to 
perpetuate  the  family.  To  die  childless  was  considered  one  of 
the  greatest  calamities. 

The  question,  however,  concerning  the  rationale  of  these  laws 
is  one  of  minor  importance.  We  may  not  be  able  to  see  exactly 
in  all  cases  why  certain  things  are  forbidden.  The  fact  that  they 
are  forbidden  should  satisfy  the  reason  and  the  conscience.  The 
two  important  questions  in  connection  with  this  subject,  to  be 
considered,  are,  first,  is  the  Levitical  law  respecting  prohibited 
marriages  still  in  force  ?  and,  second,  how  is  that  law  to  be  inter- 
preted, and  what  marriages  does  it  forbid  ? 

Is  the  Levitical  Law  of  Marriage  still  in  force  ? 

1.  It  is  a  strong  a  priori  argument  in  favour  of  an  affirmative 
answer  to  that  question,  that  it  always  has  been  regarded  as  ob- 
ligatory by  the  whole  Christian  Chm'ch. 

2,  The  reason  assigned  for  the  prohibition  contained  in  that 
law,  has  no  special  reference  to  the  Jews.  It  is  not  found  in 
their  peculiar  circumstances,  nor  in  the  design  of  God  in  select- 

1  Evangdische  Kirchen-Zeitung,  June  1840,  pp.  369-416;  see  p.  378. 


§11.]  THE    SEVENTH    COMMANDMENT.  4il 

ing  them  to  be  depositaries  of  his  truth  to  prepare  the  world  for 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  The  reason  assigned  "  is  nearness 
of  kin."  This  reason  has  as  much  force  at  one  time  as  at  an- 
other, for  all  nations  as  for  any  one  nation.  There  was  nothing 
peculiar  in  the  relation  in  which  Hebrew  parents  and  children, 
Hebrew  brothers  and  sisters,  and  Hebrew  uncles  and  nieces,  stood, 
which  was  the  ground  of  these  prohibitions.  That  ground  was 
the  nearness  of  the  relationship  itself  as  it  exists  in  every  and  in 
all  ages.  There  is,  therefore,  in  the  sight  of  God,  a  permanent 
reason  why  near  relations  ought  not  to  intermarry. 

3.  If  the  Levitical  law  be  not  still  in  force,  we  have  no  divine 
law  on  the  subject.  Then  there  is  no  such  sin  as  incest.  It  is  an 
offence  only  against  the  civil  law,  and  a  sin  against  God  only  in 
so  far  as  it  is  sinful  to  violate  the  law  of  the  state.  But  this  is 
contrary  to  the  universal  judgment  of  men,  at  least  of  Christian 
men.  For  parents  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters,  to  inter- 
marry is  universally  considered  as  sin  against  God,  irrespective  of 
any  human  prohibition.  But  if  a  sin  against  God,  it  must  be 
forbidden  in  his  AVord,  or  we  must  give  up  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  Protestantism,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  our  faith  and  practice.  As  such  marriages  are  nowhere 
in  the  Bible  forbidden  except  in  the  Levitical  law,  if  that  law 
does  not  forbid  them,  the  Bible  does  not  forbid  them. 

4.  The  judgments  of  God  are  denounced  against  the  heathen 
nations  for  permitting  the  marriages  which  the  Levitical  law  for- 
bids. In  Leviticus  xviii.  3,  it  is  said,  "  After  the  doings  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  wherein  ye  dwelt  shall  ye  not  do :  and  after  the 
doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  whither  I  bring  you,  shall  ye  not 
do  ;  neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their  ordinances."  This  is  the  intro- 
duction to  the  law  of  prohibited  marriages,  containing  the  specifica- 
tion of  the  "  ordinances  "  of  the  Egyptians  and  Canaanites,  which 
the  people  of  God  were  forbidden  to  follow.  And  in  the  twenty- 
seventh  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  at  the  close  of  these  specifica- 
tions, it  is  said,  "  All  these  abominations  have  the  men  of  the 
land  done,  which  were  before  you,  and  the  land  is  defiled." 
Again,  in  ch.  xx.  23,  still  in  reference  to  these  marriages,  it  is 
said,  "  Ye  shall  not  wallc  in  the  manners  of  the  nations  which  I 
cast  out  before  you :  for  they  committed  all  these  things,  and 
therefore  I  abhorred  them."  This  is  a  clear  proof  that  these 
laws  were  binding,  not  on  the  Jews  alone,  but  upon  all  people 
and  at  all  times. 

5.  The  continued  obligation  of  the  Levitical  law  on  this  subject 


412  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

is  also  recoo-nized  in  the  New  Testament.  This  recognition  is 
involved  in  the  constant  reference  to  the  law  of  Moses  as  the  law 
of  God.  If  in  any  of  its  parts  or  specifications  it  is  no  longer  ob- 
ligatory, that  is  to  be  proved.  It  contains  much  which  we  learn 
from  the  New  Testament  was  designed  simply  to  keep  the  He- 
brews a  distinct  people  ;  much  which  was  typical ;  much  which  was 
a  shadow  of  things  to  come,  and  which  passed  away  when  the 
substance  was  revealed.  It  contained,  however,  much  which  was 
moral  and  of  permanent  obligation.  If  God  gives  a  law  to  men, 
those  who  deny  its  perpetual  obligation  are  bound  to  prove  it. 
The  presumption  is  that  it  continues  in  force  until  the  contrary 
is  proved.  It  must  be  hard  to  prove  that  laws  founded  on  the 
permanent  social  relations  of  men  were  intended  to  be  tempo- 
rary. 

Besides  this  general  consideration,  we  find  specific  recognitions 
of  the  continued  obligation  of  the  Levitical  law  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. John  the  Baptist,  as  recorded  in  Mark  vi.  18  and  Mat- 
thew xiv.  4,  said  to  Herod  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  have 
his  brother  Philip's  wife.  It  matters  not,  as  to  the  argument, 
whether  Philip  was  living  or  not.  The  offence  charged  was  not 
that  'he  had  taken  another  man's  wife,  but  that  he  had  taken 
his  brother's  wife.  It  may  be  objected  to  this  argument  that 
•luring  the  ministry'  of  John  the  Baptist'  the  law  of  INIoses  was 
still  in  force.  This  Gerhard  denies,  who  argues  from  jNIatthew 
xi.  13,  "  All  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until  John," 
that  the  Baptist's  ministry  belongs  to  the  new  dispensation.^ 
This  may  be  doubted.  Nevertheless  John  expressed  the  moral 
sentiment  of  his  age ;  and  the  record  of  the  fact  referred  to  by 
the  Evangelists  whose  Gospels  were  written  after  the  Christian 
Church  was  fully  organized,  is  given  in  a  form  which  involves 
a  sanction  of  the  judgment  which  the  Baptist  had  expressed 
against  the  marriage  of  Herod  with  his  brother's  wife.  It  is  also 
to  be  remembered  that  the  Herodian  family  was  Idumean,  and 
therefore,  that  a  merely  Jewish  law  would  have  no  natm-al  au- 
thority over  them. 

The  Apostle  Paul,  moreover,  in  1  Corinthians  v.  1,  speaks  of  a 
man's  marr}'ing  his  step-mother  as  an  unheard  of  offence.  That 
this  was  a  case  of  marriage  and  not  of  adultery  is  plain  because  the 
the  phrase  yvralKa  ix^Lv  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament  ex- 
cept of  mamage.     This,  therefore,  is  a  clear  recognition  of  the 

1  Loci  Theohfjlci,  xxvi.  v.  ii.  2. 1.  1.  §  129,  edit.  Tiibingen,  1776,  vol.  xv.  p.  285.     Ger- 
hard subjects  th"  whole  subject  of  prohibited  marriages  to  a  protracted  discussion. 


§11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  413 

continued  obligation  of  the  law  forbidding  marriage  between 
near  relations,  whether  the  relationship  was  by  consanguinity  or 
affinity. 

6.  The  Bible  everywhere  enforces  those  laws  which  have  their 
foundation  in  the  natural  constitution  of  men.  That  this  Levit- 
ical  law  is  a  divine  authentication  of  a  law  of  nature,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  with  rare  exceptions  the  intermarriage 
of  near  relations  is  forbidden  among  all  nations.  Paul  says  that 
the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  step-mother  was  unheard  of 
among  the  heathen  ;  ^.  <?.,  it  was  forbidden  and  abhorred.     Cicero 

exclaims,  "  Nubit  genero  socrus O  mulieris  incredibile  et 

prffiter  banc  unam  in  omni  vita  inauditum  !  "  ^  Reza  says,  It 
must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  civil  laws  of  the  Romans  agree 
completely  in  reference  to  this  subject  with  the  divine  law. 
They  seemed  to  have  copied  from  it.^ 

No  Christian  Church  doubts  the  continued  obligation  of  any  of 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  of  which  it  can  be  said  that  the  rea- 
son assigned  for  their  enactment  is  the  permanent  relations  of 
men  ;  that  the  heathen  are  condemned  for  their  violation  ;  and 
that  the  New  Testament  refers  to  them  as  still  in  force :  and 
which  heathen  nations  under  the  guidance  of  natural  conscience 
have  enacted. 

How  is  the  Levitical  Law  to  he  interpreted? 

Admitting  the  Levitical  law  of  marriage  to  be  still  in  force,  the 
next  question  is.  How  is  it  to  be  interpreted  ?  Is  it  to  be  under- 
stood as  specifying  the  degrees  of  relation,  whether  of  consan- 
guinity or  of  affinity,  within  which  intermarriage  is  forbidden  ?  or, 
is  it  to  be  viewed  as  an  enumeration  of  particular  cases,  so  that 
no  case  not  specifically  mentioned  is  to  be  mcluded  in  the  pro- 
hibition ? 

The  former  of  these  rules  of  interpretation  is  the  one  generally 
adopted  ;  for  the  following  reasons  :  — 

1.  The  language  of  the  law  itself.  It  begins  with  a  general 
prohibition  of  marriage  between  those  who  are  near  of  kiri. 
Nearness  of  kindred  is  made  the  ground  of  the  prohibition.  The 
sjiecifications  which  follow  are  intended  to  show  what  degree  of 
nearness  of  kindred  works  a  prohibition.  This  reason  applies  to 
many  cases  not  particularly  mentioned  in  Leviticus  xviii.  or  else- 

1  Pro  A.  Cluentio,  v.  vi.  (14,  15);    Works  edit.  Leipzig,  1850,  p.  374,  b. 

2  Beza,  De  Itejmdiis  et  Divortiis,  Traciationes  Theologicce,  edit.  Eustatliius  Vignon,  15S2, 
rol.  ii.  p.  52. 


414  PART  m.    Ch.  XIX.— the  law. 

where.    Tlie  law  would  seem  to  be  applicable  to  all  cases  in  which 
the  di^4nely  assigned  reason  for  its  enactment  is  found  to  exist. 

2.  The  design  of  the  law,  as  we  have  seen,  is  twofold :  first, 
to  keep  sacred  those  relationships  which  naturally  give  rise  to 
feelings  and  affections  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  marriage 
relation ;  and  secondly,  the  preservation  of  domestic  purity.  As 
the  natural  affections  are  due  partly  to  the  very  constitution  of 
our  nature,  and  partly  to  the  familiarity  and  constancy  of  inter- 
course, and  the  interchange  of  kindly  offices,  it  is  natural  that 
in  the  enumeration  of  the  prohibited  cases  regard  should  be  had, 
in  the  selection,  to  those  in  which  this  familiarity  of  intercourse, 
at  the  time  the  law  was  enacted,  actually  prevailed.  In  the  East 
the  family  is  organized  on  different  principles  from  those  on 
which  it  is  organized  in  the  West.  Among  the  early  Oriental 
nations  especially,  the  males  of  a  family  "with  their  wives  re- 
mained together ;  while  the  daughters,  being  given  in  marriage, 
went  away  and  were  amalgamated  with  the  families  of  their  hus- 
bands. Hence  it  would  happen  that  relatives  by  the  father's  side 
would  be  intimate  associates,  while  those  of  the  same  degree  on 
the  mother's  side  might  be  perfect  strangers.  A  law,  therefore, 
constructed  on  the  principle  of  prohibiting  marriage  between 
parties  so  related  as  to  be  already  in  the  bonds  of  natural  affection 
and  who  Avere  domesticated  in  the  same  family  circle,  would  deal 
principally  in  specifications  of  relationships  on  the  father's  side. 
It  would  not  follow,  however,  from  this  fact,  that  relations  of  the 
same  grade  of  kindred  might  freely  intermarry,  simply  because 
they  were  not  specified  in  the  enumeration.  The  law  in  its  prin- 
ciple applies  to  all  cases,  whether  enumerated  or  not,  in  which 
the  nearness  of  kin  is  the  source  of  natural  affection,  and  in  which 
it  leads  to  and  justifies  intimate  association. 

3.  Another  consideration  in  favour  of  the  principle  of  interpre- 
tation usually  adopted,  is,  that  the  opposite  rule  would  introduce 
the  greatest  inconsistencies  into  the  huv.  The  law  forbids  mar- 
riage between  those  near  of  kin  ;  and,  according  to  this  rule,  it 
goes  on  alternately  permitting  and  forbidding  marriages  where 
the  relationship  is  precisely  the  same.  Thus,  a  man  cannot 
marry  the  daughter  of  his  son ;  but  a  woman  may  marry  the  son 
of  her  daughter  ;  a  man  cannot  marry  the  widow  of  his  father's 
brother,  but  he  may  marry  the  widow  of  his  mother's  brother  ;  a 
woman  cannot  marry  two  brothers,  but  a  man  may  marry  two 
sisters.  These  inconsistencies  might  be  intelligible  if  the  law 
were  a  temporary  and  local  enactment,  designed  for  a  transient 


§  11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COxMMANDMENT.  415 

state  of  society  ;  but  they  are  utterly  unaccountable  if  tlie  law 
be  one  of  permanent  and  universal  obligation.  A  rule  of  inter- 
pretation which  brings  uniformity  and  consistency  into  these 
enactments  of  Scripture,  is  certainly  to  be  preferred  to  one  which 
renders  them  confused  and  inconsistent. 

Prohibited  Degrees. 

The  cases  specifically  mentioned  are :  1.  Mother.  2.  Step- 
mother. 3.  Grand-daughter.  4.  Sister  and  half-sister,  "  born 
at  home  or  born  abroad,"  i.  g.,  legitimate  or  illegitimate.  5.  Aunt 
on  the  father's  side.  6.  Maternal  aunt.  7.  The  wife  of  a  father's 
brother.  8.  Daughter-in-law.  9.  Brother's  wife.  10.  A  woman 
and  her  daughter.  11.  A  wife's  grand-daughter.  12.  Two 
sisters  at  the  same  time. 

The  meaning  of  Leviticus  xviii.  18,  has  been  much  disputed. 
The  question  is.  Whether  the  words  nrnnS'bs  nt^'S,  "  a  woman  to 
her  sister,"  are  to  be  understood  in  their  idiomatic  sense,  "one  to 
another,"  so  that  the  law  forbids  bigamy,  the  taking  of  one  wife 
to  another  during  her  lifetime  ;  or.  Whether  they  are  to  be  taken 
literally,  so  that  this  law  forbids  a  man's  marrying  the  sister  of  his 
wife  while  the  latter  is  Hving.  It  is  certain  that  the  words  in  ques- 
tion have  in  several  places  the  idiomatic  sense  ascribed  to  them. 
In  Exodus  xxvi.  3,  "  Five  curtains  shall  be  coupled  together  one 
to  another,"  literally,  "  a  Avoman  to  her  sister  ;  "  so  in'verse  5,  the 
loops  take  hold,  "  a  woman  and  her  sister  ;  "  ver.  6,  the  taches  of 
gold  unite  the  curtains,  "  a  Avoman  and  her  sister."  Also  in  ver. 
17.  Thus  also  m  Ezekiel  i.  9,  it  is  said,  "  their  wings  were  joined 
one  to  another,"  "  a  woman  to  her  sister  ;  "  and  again  in  ch.  iii.  13. 
The  words  therefore  admit  of  the  rendering  given  in  the  margin 
of  the  English  version.  But  it  is  objected  to  this  interpretation 
in  this  case  :  (1.)  That  the  words  in  question  never  mean  "  one 
to  another,"  except  when  preceded  by  a  plural  noun  ;  which  is  not 
the  case  in  Leviticus  xviii.  18.  (2.)  If  this  explanation  be  adopted, 
the  passage  contains  an  explicit  prohibition  of  polygamy,  which 
the  law  of  Moses  permitted.  (3.)  It  is  mmatural  to  take  the  words 
"  wife"  and  "  sister  "  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  they 
are  used  throughout  the  chapter.  (4.)  The  ancient  versions  agree 
with  the  rendering  given  in  the  text  of  the  English  Bible.  The 
Septuagint  has  y^;^'a^/<a  Itt  aZeXc^ri  avTr]<i ;  the  Vulgatc,  "  sororem 
uxoris  tuse." 

In  this  interpretation  the  modern  commentators  almost  without 
exception  agree.     Thus  Maurer  renders  the  passage :  "  '  Uxorem 


416  PART  in.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

ad  («'.  g.,  pr?eter)  sororem  ejus  ne  ducito,'  i.  e.,  NoUi  praster  tuam 
conjugem  aliam  insuper  uxorem  ducere,  quse  illius  soror  est."  ^ 
Baumgarten's  comment  is :  "  From  the  fact  that  the  prohibition 
of  the  marriage  of  a  wife's  sister  is  expressly  conditioned  on  the 
life  of  the  former,  we  must  infer  with  the  Rabbins,  that  after  the 
death  of  the  wife  this  marriage  is  permitted.  True,  the  degree 
of  affinity  is  here  the  same  as  in  ver.  16,  but  there  the  relationship 
is  on  the  male,  here  on  the  female  side  ;  this  makes  a  differ- 
ence, because  under  the  Old  Testament  the  woman  had  not  at- 
tained to  the  same  degree  of  personality  and  independence  as  the 
man."  ^  Rosenmiiller  says  :  "  Uxorem  ad  sororem  ejus  ne  ducas, 
duas  sorores  ne  ducas  in  matrimonium,  scil.  n^^nri  in  vita  ^jus,  i.  e., 
uxore  tua  vivente.  Non  igitur  prohibet  Moses  matrimonium  cum 
sorore  uxoris  mortu^e."  ^  Knobel  says  :  "  Finally,  a  man  shall 
not  marry  ....  the  sister  of  his  wife,  so  long  as  the  latter  lives. 
....  To  marry  one  after  the  other,  after  the  death  of  the 
other,  is  not  forbidden."  ^  Keil  understands  v.  18  in  the  same 
way.  It  forbids,  according  to  his  view,  a  man's  having  two  sis- 
ters, at  the  same  time,  as  his  wives.  "  After  the  death  of  the 
first  wife,"  he  adds,  "  marriage  with  her  sister  was  allowed."  ^ 

The  inference  which  these  Aviiters  draw  from  the  fact  that  in 
this  passage  the  marriage  of  a  wife's  sister  is  forbidden  during 
the  life  of  the  wife,  that  the  marriage  of  the  sister,  after  the  death 
of  the  wife,  is  allowed,  is  very  precarious.  All  that  the  pa-ssage 
teaches  is,  that  if  a  man  chooses  to  have  two  mves,  at  the  same 
time,  which  the  law  allowed,  they  must  not  be  sisters  ;  and  the 
reason  assigned  is,  that  it  would  bring  the  sisters  into  a  false  re- 
lation to  each  other.  This  leaves  the  question  of  the  propriety 
of  marrying  the  sister  of  a  deceased  wife  just  where  it  was.  This 
verse  has  no  direct  bearing  on  that  subject. 

The  cases  not  expressly  mentioned  in  Leviticus  xviii.,  although 
involving  the  same  degree  of  kindred  as  those  included  in  the 
enumeration,  are  :  1.  A  man's  own  daughter.  This  is  a  clear 
proof  that  the  enumeration  was  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive. 
2.  A  brother's  daughter.    3.  A  sister's  daughter.    4.  A  materual 

1  Commentarius  Grammaticus  Criticus  in  Vetus  Testamentum,  Leipzig,  1835,  vol.  i. 
p.  51. 

2  Theolofjischer  Commentar  zum  Pentateuch,  Kiel,  1844,  vol.  i.   part  2,  p.  204. 

8  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum  in  Compendium  redacta,  Leipzig,  1828,  vol.  i  p. 
539. 

*  Kurzgefasstes  exef/etisches  Handbuch  zum  Alten  Testament.  Exodus  tmd  LevittcM 
erkliirt,  von  August  Knobel,  Leipzig,  1857.  pp.  505,  506. 

6  Blbllscher  Commentar  ilber  das  Alte  Testfimmt,  Ileraiisgegeben  von  Carl  Friedr.  Fv' 
und  Frank  Delitzsch;  Die  Bdcher  Moses,  von  C.  F.  Keil,  Leipzig,  1802,  vol.  ii.  p.  117. 


§11.]  THE    SEVENTH   COMMANDMENT.  417 

uncle's  widow.     5.  A  brother's  son's  widow.     6.  A  sister's  son's 
widow.     7.  The  sister  of  a  deceased  wife. 

As  nearness  of  kindred  is  made  the  ground  of  prohibition,  and 
as  these  cases  are  included  within  "  the  degrees  "  specified,  the 
Church  has  considered  them  as  belonging  to  the  class  of  prohib- 
ited marriages.  It  is,  however,  to  be  considered  that  the  word 
"  prohibited,"  as  here  used,  is  very  comprehensive.  Some  of  the 
marriages  specified  in  the  Levitical  law  are  prohibited  in  very- 
different  senses.  Some  are  pronounced  abominable,  and  those 
who  contract  them  are  made  punishable  with  death.  Others  are 
pronounced  unseemly,  or  evil,  and  punished  by  exclusion  from 
the  privileges  of  the  theocracy.  Others  again  incur  the  penalty 
of  dying  childless ;  probably  meaning  that  the  children  of  such 
marriages  should  not  be  enrolled  m  the  family  registers  which 
the  Jews  were  so  careful  to  preserve. 

As  this  distinction  is  recognized  in  the  law  itself,  so  it  is  founded 
in  the  nature  of  the  case.  As  nearness  of  kin  varies  from  the 
most  intimate  relationship  to  the  most  distant,  so  these  marriages 
vary  in  their  impropriety  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  degree. 
Some  of  them  may,  in  certain  cases,  be  "wrong,  not  in  themselves, 
but  simply  from  the  obligation  to  uphold  a  salutary  law.  That 
is,  there  may  be  cases  to  which  the  law,  but  not  the  reason  of  the 
law  applies.  For  example  ;  a  man  may  go  thousands  of  miles 
from  home  and  marry :  his  wife  would  stand  in  a  very  different 
relation  to  her  husband's  brothers,  than  had  she  lived  in  the  same 
house  with  them.  The  law  forbidding  a  woman  to  marry  the 
brother  of  her  deceased  husband,  would  apply  to  her ;  but  the 
reason  of  that  law  would  affect  her  in  a  very  slight  degree; 
nevertheless,  even  in  her  case,  the  law  should  be  observed. 

There  is  another  obvious  remark  that  ought  to  be  made.  Strong 
repugnance  is  often  felt  and  expressed  against  the  Levitical  law, 
not  only  because  it  is  regarded  as  placing  all  the  marriages  speci- 
fied on  the  same  level,  representing  all  as  equally  offensive  in  the 
sight  of  God,  but  also  from  the  assumption  that  all  the  marriages 
forbidden  are,  if  contracted,  invalid.  This  is  a  wrong  view  of  the 
subject.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  law  itself,  and  contrary  to  the 
analogy  of  Scripture.  The  law  recognizes  a  great  disparity  in 
the  impropriety  of  these  marriages.  Some,  as  just  remarked,  are 
utterly  abominable  and  insufferable.  Others  are  specified  because 
inexpedient  or  dangerous,  as  conflicting  with  some  ethical  or  pru- 
aential  principle. 

It  is  in  this  as  in  many  other  cases.    The  Mosaic  law  f^iscounte 

VOL.  III.  27 


413  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

naiiced  and  discouraged  intermarriage  between  the  chosen  people 
and  their  heathen  neighbours.  With  regard  to  the  Canaanites, 
such  intermarriages  were  absohitely  forbidden  ;  with  other  heathen 
nations,  although  discountenanced,  they  were  tolerated.  Joseph 
married  an  Egyptian ;  Moses,  a  Midianite ;  Solomon  married 
Pharaoh's  daughter.  Such  marriages,  in  the  settled  state  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  may  have  been  wrong,  but  they  were  valid.  Even 
now  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  believers  are  forbidden  to 
be  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers.  It  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  every  marriage  between  a  believer  and  an  un- 
believer is  invalid.  These  remarks  are  not  out  of  place.  The 
truth  suffers  from  being  misapprehended.  If  the  Bible  is  made 
to  teach  what  is  contrary  to  the  common  sense,  or  the  intuitive 
judgments  of  men,  it  suffers  great  injustice.  No  man  can  force 
himself  to  believe  that  a  man's  marrying  the  sister  of  a  deceased 
wife  is  the  same  kind  of  offence  as  a  father's  marrying  his  own 
daughter.  The  Bible  teaches  no  such  doctrme ;  and  it  is  a 
«ilander  so  to  represent  it. 

Concluding  HemarJcs. 

The  laws  of  God  are  sacred.  They  are  founded,  not  only  on 
his  infinite  wisdom,  but  also  on  the  nature  of  his  creatures,  and, 
therefore,  should  be  sedulously  observed.  There  may,  in  some 
cases,  be  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  the  law  or  will 
of  God  is,  but  when  ascertained,  it  is  our  wisdom  and  duty  to  j 
make  it  the  rule  of  our  conduct.  This  is  so  obvious  that  the 
statement  of  it  may  seem  entirely  superfluous.  It  is  so  common, 
however,  for  men  professing  to  be  Christians  to  make  their  own  j 
feelings,  opinions,  and  views  of  expediency,  the  rule  of  action 
for  themselves  and  others,  that  it  is  by  no  means  a  work  of  super- 
erogation, to  reiterate  on  all  proper  occasions  the  truism  that  there 
is  no  wisdom  like  God's  wisdom,  and  that  men  are  never  "svise 
exce23t  when  they  follow  the  wisdom  of  God  as  revealed  in  his 
Word,  even  when  they  have  to  do  it  blindly. 

There  are  certain  principles  which  underlie  the  marriage  laws 
of  the  Bible,  which  all  men  in  their  private  capacity  and  when 
acting  as  legislators,  would  do  well  to  respect,  — 

1.  The  first  is,  that  marriage  is  not  a  mere  external  union  ;  it  is 
not  simply  a  mutual  compact ;  it  is  not  merely  a  civil  contract.  It 
is  a  real,  physical,  vital,  and  spiritual  union,  in  virtue  of  which  mail: 
and  wife  become,  not  merely  in  a  figurative  sense,  but  really,  al- 
though in  a  mysterious  sense,  one  flesh.    This  is  not  only  expressly 


§  11.]  THE   SEVENTH   COJVBIANDMENT.  419 

declared  by  Christ  himself  to  be  the  nature  of  marriage,  but  it  ia 
the  doctrine  which  underlies  the  whole  Levitical  law  on  this  sub- 
ject. Nearness  of  kin  is  expressed  constantly  by  saying  that  one 
is  "  flesh  of  the  flesh  "  of  the  other,  i-itrn  "^SLf,  "  Carnem  carnis 
suse  s.  corporis  sui  esse  cognatam  propinquam,  quae  est  ut  caro 
ejusdem  corporis."  ^  According  to  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  hus- 
band and  wife  are  the  nearest  of  all  relations  to  each  other.  Ac- 
cording to  the  spirit,  and  most  of  the  legislation  of  the  present 
age,  they  are  no  relations  at  all.  They  are  simply  partners.  If 
one  member  of  a  business  firm  die,  his  property  does  not  go  to 
his  partner,  but  to  his  own  family  ;  so  if  a  \vife  die,  without  chil- 
dren, her  property  does  not  go  to  her  husband,  but  to  her  third 
or  fourth  cousins.  They,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  are  more  nearly 
related  to  her  than  her  husband.  This  is  not  the  light  in  wliich 
God  looks  upon  marriage. 

2.  The  second  principle  which  underlies  these  marriage-laws  is, 
that  aSinity  is  as  real  a  bond  of  relationship  as  consanguinity. 
Fully  one  half  of  the  marriages  specified  in  Leviticus  are  pro- 
hibited on  the  ground  of  aflinity.  The  same  form  of  expression 
is  used  to  designate  both  kinds  of  relationship.  Those  related  to 
each  other  by  affinity  are  said  to  be  "  flesh  of  the  flesh,"  one  of 
the  other,  just  as  blood  relations  ;  because  all  the  specifications 
contained  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus  are  included  im- 
der  the  general  prohibition  contained  in  the  sixth  verse,  "  None 
of  you  shall  approach  to  any  that  is  near  of  kin  to  him ;  "  un- 
der this  head  are  included  step-mothers  ;  mothers-in-law ;  step- 
daughters ;  sisters-in-law  (as  when  a  man  is  forbidden  to  marry 
the  widow  of  his  brother)  ;  uncle's  wife,  etc.  These  relation- 
ships are  traced  out  in  the  line  of  aflinity,  just  as  far  as  they  are 
in  that  of  consanguinity.  The  declaration,  therefore,  contained 
in  the  Westminster  Confession,^  "  The  man  may  not  marry  any 
of  his  wife's  kindred  nearer  in  blood  than  he  may  of  his  own,  nor 
the  woman  of  her  husband's  kindred  nearer  in  blood  than  of  her 
own,"  is  a  simple  and  comprehensive  statement  of  the  law  as  laid 
down  in  Leviticus.  Li  saying  that  affinity  is  as  real  a  bond  of 
relationship  as  consanguinity,  it  is  not  meant  that  it  is  as  strong. 
A  daughter  is  a  nearer  relation  than  a  step-daughter,  or  daugh- 
ter-in-law ;  a  mother  than  a  step-mother  ;  a  sister  than  a  sister- 
in-law.     This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  recognized  in  the  law  itself. 

1  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum  in  Compendium  redacta,  Leipzig,  1838, 
yol.  i.  pp.  530,  537. 

2  Chap.  xxiv.  4. 


420  PART  m.     Cn.   XIX.— THE   LAW. 

The  Bible  asserts  nothino:  inconsistent  witli  fact  or  nature.  In 
making  affinity  a  real  bond  of  kindred,  it  is  meant  that  it  is  not 
merely  nominal,  or  conventional,  or  arbitrary.  It  has  its  fomida- 
tion  in  nature  and  fact. 

Mr.  Bishop,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  "  Marriage  and  Divorce," 
says,  "  A  truly  enlightened  view  Avill  doubtless  discard  altogether 
affinity  as  an  impediment,  while  it  will  extend  somewhat  the 
degrees  of  consanguinity  within  which  marriages  will  be  forbid- 
den." 1  He  also  teaches  ^  that  "  the  relationship  by  affinity  " 
ceases  "  with  the  dissolution  which  death  brings  to  the  marriage. 
....  If,  when  a  man's  wife  dies,  she  is  still  his  wife,  then,  of 

course,  her  sister  is  still  his  sister If,  on  the  other  hand, 

the  wife  is  no  more  the  wife  after  her  death,  then  is  her  sister  no 
more  the  sister  of  the  husband.  And  though  men  who  have  no 
other  idea  of  religion  than  to  regard  it  as  a  bundle  of  absurd  and 
loathed  forms,  may  not  be  able  to  see  how  the  termination  of  the 
relationship  by  the  death  of  the  wife  is  of  any  consequence  in  the 
case,  yet  men  who  discern  differently  and  more  wisely,  will  dis- 
cover nothing  unseemly  in  practically  acting  upon  a  fact  which 
everybody  knows  to  exist." 

It  is  very  evident  that  Mr.  Bishop  never  asked  himseK  what,  in 
the  present  connection,  the  word  "  relationship  "  means.  Had  he 
had  any  clear  idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  he  never  could 
have  written  the  above  sentences.  By  relationship  is  here  meant 
the  relation  in  which  parties  stand  to  each  other ;  and  that,  in  the 
case  supposed,  is  a  matter  of  feeling,  affection,  and  intimacy. 
This  relationship  is  not  dissolved  by  the  death  of  the  person 
through  whom  it  arose.  A  wife's  sister  continues  to  cherish  to 
her  widowed  brother-in-law  the  same  sisterly  affection  after,  as  be- 
fore her  sister's  death.  She  can  live  with  him,  guide  his  house,  and 
take  charge  of  his  children,  %vithout  the  slightest  violation  of  her 
self-respect,  and  mthout  fear  of  incurring  the  disrespect  of  others. 

Besides,  if  relationship  by  affinity  is  dissolved  by  death,  then  a 
son  may,  on  the  death  of  his  father,  marry  his  step-mother,  which 
Paul  says  (1  Cor.  v.  1)  was  not  tolerated  among  the  heathen. 
We  have  not  come  to  that  yet.  On  the  principle  of  ]\Ir.  Bishop, . 
a  man  may  marry  his  mother-in-law,  his  daughter-in-law,  and, 
on  the  death  of  the  mother,  his  step-daughter.  All  this  the  Bible 
forbids ;  and  whatever  rehgion  in  some  of  its  manifestations  may 

1  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  by  Joel  Prentiss  Bishop,  Boston 
1864,  vol.  i.  §  320. 

2  Ihid.  §  314,  note  2. 


§  12.]  THE   EIGHTH   COMMANDMENT.  421 

be,  tlie  Bible,  surely,  is  not  "  a  bundle  of  absurd  and  loathed 
forms."  It  is  the  msdom  of  God,  in  the  presence  of  which  the 
wisdom  of  man  is  foohshness. 

3.  The  great  truth  contained  in  these  laws  is,  that  it  is  the 
mil  of  God,  the  dictate  of  his  infinite  and  benevolent  wisdom 
that  the  affections  which  belong  to  the  relation  in  which  kin- 
dred (whether  by  consanguinity  or  affinity)  stand  to  each  other, 
should  not  be  disturbed,  perverted,  or  corrupted  by  that  essen- 
tially different  kind  of  love  which  is  appropriate  and  holy  in  the 
conjugal  relation  ;  and  that  a  protecting  halo  should  be  shed 
around  the  family  circle. 

§  12.   The  Eighth  Commandment. 

This  commandment  forbids  all  violations  of  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty. The  right  of  property  in  an  object  is  the  right  to  its  ex- 
clusive possession  and  use. 

The  foundation  of  the  right  of  property  is  the  will  of  God. 
By  this  is  meant,  (1.)  That  God  has  so  constituted  man  that  he 
desires  and  needs  this  right  of  the  exclusive  possession  and  use  of 
certain  things.  (2.)  Having  made  man  a  social  being.  He  has 
made  the  right  of  property  essential  to  the  healthful  development 
of  human  society.  (3.)  He  has  implanted  a  sense  of  justice  in 
the  nature  of  man,  which  condemns  as  morally  wrong  everything 
inconsistent  with  the  right  in  question.  (4.)  He  has  declared  in 
his  Word  that  any  and  every  violation  of  this  right  is  sinful. 

This  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  property  is  the  only  secur- 
ity for  the  mdividual  or  for  society.  If  it  be  made  to  rest  on 
any  other  foundation,  it  is  insecure  and  unstable.  It  is  only  by 
making  property  sacred,  guarded  by  the  fiery  sword  of  divine  jus- 
tice, that  it  can  be  safe  from  the  dangers  to  wliich  it  is  everywhere 
and  always  exposed. 

Numerous  theories  have  been  advanced  on  this  subject.  These 
theories  have  had  a  twofold  object :  the  one  to  explain  the  nature 
and  ground  of  the  right ;  the  other  to  explain  how  the  right  was 
originally  acquired.  These  objects  are  distinct  and  should  not  be 
confounded. 

1.  The  modern  philosophical  theory  that  might  is  right,  that 
the  strongest  is  always  the  best,  includes  indeed  both  these  ob- 
jects. If  being  is  the  only  good,  and  if  it  is  true  the  more  of 
being  the  more  of  good,  then  he  who  has  the  most  of  being,  he 
in  whom  the  infinite  is  most  fully  revealed,  has  the  right  to  have 
and  to  hold  whatever  he  chooses  to  Dossess. 


422  PART  III.    Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

2.  If  a  regard  to  our  individual  well-being  be  the  only  ground 
of  moral  obligation,  then  a  man  lias  the  right  to  whatever  will 
make  him  happy.  He  may,  and  he  certainly  would,  make  a  great 
mistake,  if  he  supposed  that  taking  what  does  not  belong  to  him 
would  promote  his  happiness ;  but  he  is  restrained  from  such  in- 
justice only  by  a  sense  of  prudence.  He  is  entitled  to  have  what- 
ever in  fact  would  make  him  happy,  and  for  that  reason. 

8.  If  regard  to  the  general  good,  the  greatest  happiness  of  the 
greatest  number,  or  expediency,  as  Paley  makes  it,  be  the  rule  and 
ground  of  duty,  then  it  will  always  be  a  matter  of  opinion,  a  mat- 
ter on  which  men  will  ever  differ,  what  is,  and  what  is  not  expedi- 
ent. One  might  think  that  a  community  of  goods  would  promote 
the  greatest  good,  and  then  he  would,  at  least  in  his  own  con- 
science, be  entitled  to  act  on  that  principle.  Others  might  think 
that  agrarianism,  or  the  periodic  distribution  of  all  the  land  of -the 
country  in  equal  portions  among  the  people,  would  promote  the 
general  good,  and  then  that  would  be  to  them  the  rule  of  action. 
There  would  be  no  end  to  the  devices  to  promote  the  greatest 
good,  if  the  rights  of  men  rested  on  no  other  foundation  than  that 
of  expediency. 

Some  of  the  most  distinguished  legal  and  philosophical  writers 
of  the  present  age  teach  that  "  property  is  founded  on  utihty." 
With  some,  however,  utility  is  not  the  ground,  but  rather  the  test 
of  human  rights  and  duties.  The  fact  that  an  institution  or  a 
course  of  conduct  is  conducive  to  the  public  good,  is  not  so  much 
the  reason  why  it  is  right,  as  a  proof  that  it  is  right  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  will  of  God.  "  God  designs  the  happiness  of 
all  his  sentient  creatures.  Some  human  actions  forward  that  be- 
nevolent purpose,  or  their  tendencies  are  beneficent  and  useful. 
Other  human  actions  are  adverse  to  that  purpose,  or  their  ten- 
dencies are  mischievous  or  pernicious.  The  former,  as  promoting 
his  purpose,  God  has  enjoined.  The  latter,  as  opposed  to  his  pur- 
pose, God  has  forbidden.  He  has  given  us  the  faculty  of  observ- 
ing ;  of  remembering ;  and  of  reasoning  ;  and  by  duly  applying 
those  faculties,  we  may  collect  the  tendencies  of  our  actions. 
Knowing  the  tendencies  of  our  actions,  and  knowing  his  benevo- 
lent purpose,  we  know  his  tacit  commands."  ^  It  is  no  doubt  true 
that  it  is  a  fair  and  conclusive  argument  that  a  thing  is  right  or 
wrong  in  itself  and  conformed  or  opposed  to  the  will  of  God,  that 
its  tendency  is  of  necessity  and  always  to  produce,  on  the  one 

1  Lectures  on  Jurisprudence,  or  the  Philosophy  of  Positive  Law,  by  the  late  John  Austia 
Id  edit,  revised  and  edited  by  Robert  Campbell,  London,  18G9,  vol.  i.  p.  109. 


§12.]  THE   EIGHTH   CO^IMANDMENT.  423 

hand,  good,  or,  on  the  other,  evil.  But  this  is  a  roundabout  way 
of  getting  at  the  truth.  Whether  an  institution  or  a  course  of 
action  be  useful  or  not,  must  be  a  matter  of  opinion.  And  if  a 
matter  of  opinion,  men  will  differ  about  it ;  and  the  opinion  of 
one  man,  or  even  of  the  majority  of  men,  will  have  no  authority 
over  others.  God  has  revealed  his  will  in  his  Word,  and  in  the 
constitution  of  our  nature.  Paul  says  that  even  the  heathen  "  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,"  that  the  law  is  "  writ- 
ten in  their  hearts."  (Rom.  ii.  14,  15.)  Property  is  sacred,  not 
because  in  our  opinion  it  is  a  usefu.1  institution,  and  hence  infer- 
cntially  approved  by  God,  but  He  has  said  in  the  Bible,  and  says 
in  every  man's  conscience,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal."  Mr.  Austin's 
theory  does  not  prevent  his  teaching  that  "  property /its  in  rem^' 
depends  on  "  principles  of  utility."  ^ 

4.  Paley  says  also  that  "  the  real  foundation  of  our  right  [to 
property]  is  the  law  of  the  land."  He  admits,  however,  that  the 
law  may  authorize  the  most  flagitious  injustice.  He  therefore 
makes  a  distinction  between  the  words  and  the  intention  of  the 
law  ;  and  adds  :  "  With  the  law,  we  acknowledge,  resides  the  dis- 
posal of  property  ;  so  long,  therefore,  as  we  keep  vdthin  the  design 
and  intention  of  a  law,  that  law  will  justify  us,  as  well  in/oro  con- 
scientice^  as  mforo  humano,  whatever  be  the  equity  or  expediency 
of  the  law  itself."  ^  The  law  of  the  land  has  indeed  legitimately 
much  to  do  with  questions  of  property ;  but  the  right  itself  does 
not  rest  upon  that  law,  and  is,  in  the  sight  of  God,  independent  of 
it.  The  right  exists  prior  to  all  law  of  the  state.  The  law  cannot 
ignore  that  right.  It  cannot  rightfully  deprive  a  man  of  his  prop- 
erty, except  in  punishment  of  crime,  or  on  the  ground  of  stringent 
necessity,  and,  in  the  latter  case,  with  due  compensation.  Property, 
however,  is  not  the  creature  of  the  law.  No  unjust  law  gives  a  title 
to  property,  valid  in  the  sight  of  God ;  that  is,  a  title  which  should 
satisfy  a  conscientious  man  in  entering  upon  its  possession  and 
use.  Even  when  the  law  is  not  unjust,  it  may  work,  not  legal, 
but  moral  injustice.  A  will,  for  example,  may  clearly  express 
the  wishes  and  intention  of  a  testator,  but  for  some  clerical  or 
technical  error  be  set  aside  and  the  property  go  to  a  person  for 
whom  it  was  not  intended.  Such  person  would  have  a  legal,  but 
not  a  morally  valid  title  to  the  property.  Good  men  are  some- 
times heard  to  say :  "  We  will  take  all  the  law  gives  us ; "   in 

1  Juriiprudence,  vol.  i.  pp.  132,  382;  vol.  ii.  pp.  1161. 

2  The  Principles  of  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  book  iii.  part  i.  ch.  iv. ;  edit.  Bostoiv 
1S48,  vol.  i.  pp.  87-89. 


424  PART  III.     Ch.  XIX.  — the   law. 

saying  this,  they  do  not  apprehend  the  full  meaning  of  their 
words;  it  amounts  to  saying  that  in  matters  of  property  they 
will  make  the  law  of  the  land,  and  not  the  law  of  God,  the  rule 
of  their  conduct. 

5.  It  is  a  very  common  doctrine  that  the  right  of  property 
is  founded  on  common  consent,  or  on  the  social  compact. 
Men  agree  that  each  man  may  appropriate  to  liimseK  a  por- 
tion of  what  originally  is  common  to  all.  But  this  consent 
only  recognizes  a  right';  it  does  not  create  it.  If  a  man  takes  a 
glass  of  water  from  a  stream  common  to  all,  it  is  of  right  his ; 
and  he  has  no  need  to  appeal  to  any  compact  or  consent  to  justify 
his  appropriating  it  to  himself.  The  question  how  a  man  ac- 
quires a  right  to  property,  and  the  nature  of  the  right  itself,  as 
before  remarked,  are  different  questions,  although  intimately  re- 
lated. 

6.  Both  are  included  in  the  common  theory  on  the  subject.  If 
a  man  puts  under  culture  a  portion  of  unappropriated  land,  it  is 
for  the  time  being  his,  on  the  principle  that  a  man  o^vns  himself, 
and  therefore  the  fruits  of  his  labour.  Exclusive  possession  and 
use  of  the  land  in  question  are  necessary  to  secure  the  man  those 
fruits  ;  he  has,  therefore,  the  right  to  the  land  as  long  as  he  uses 
it.  If  he  abandons  it,  his  right  ceases.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
his  use  is  continued,  so  as  to  involve  occupancy,  his  right  of  pos- 
session becomes  permanent.  It  is  on  this  principle  men  act  in 
mining  districts  in  unoccupied  lands.  Each  man,  the  first  comer, 
stakes  out  for  himself  a  claim  ;  this  he  works,  or  is  entitled  to 
keep  to  himself.  If  he  abandons  it  and  goes  elsewhere,  it  ceases 
to  be  his.  If  he  permanently  occupies  it,  it  is  permanently  his. 
The  right  of  property  is  thus  made  to  rest  on  occupancy  and  use ; 
in  other  words,  on  labour.  But  even  this,  according  to  Blackstone, 
is  not  a  natural  right.  "  All  property,"  he  says,  "  must  cease 
upon  death,  considering  men  as  absolute  individuals,  and  uncon- 
nected with  civil  society :  for  then,  by  the  principles  before  es- 
tablished, the  next  immediate  occupant  would  acquire  a  right  in 
all  that  the  deceased  possessed.  But  as,  under  civilized  govern- 
ments which  are  calculated  for  the  peace  of  mankind,  such  a 
constitution  would  be  productive  of  endless  disturbances,  uni- 
versal law  of  almost  every  nation  (which  is  a  kind  of  second- 
ary law  of  nature)  has  either  given  the  dying  person  a  power  of 
continuing  his  property,  by  disposing  of  his  possessions  b}''  will ; 
or,  in  case  he  neglects  to  dispose  of  it,  or  is  not  permitted  to  make 
any  disposition  at  all,  the  municipal  law  of  the  country  then  stepa 


§12.]  THE   EIGHTH   COMMANDMENT.  425 

in,  and  declares  who  shall  be  the  successor,  representative,  or  heir 
of  the  deceased  ;  that  is,  who  alone  shall  have  a  right  to  enter 
upon  this  vacant  possession,  in  order  to  avoid  that  confusion  which 
its  becoming  again  common  would  occasion."  On  the  same  page, 
speaking  of  the  right  of  inheritance,  he  says  :  "  We  are  apt  to 
conceive  at  first  view  that  it  has  nature  on  its  side  ;  yet  we  often 
mistake  for  nature  what  we  find  established  by  long  and  invet- 
erate custom.  It  is  a  wise  and  effectual,  but  clearly  a  political 
establishment ;  since  the  permanent  right  of  property,  vested  in 
the  ancestor  himself,  was  no  natural,  but  merely  a  civil  right."  ^ 
He  had  said  before,^  "  Necessity  begat  property  ;  and  in  order  to 
insure  that  property,  recourse  was  had  to  civil  society,  which 
brought  along  with  it  a  long  train  of  inseparable  concomitants  ; 
states,  government,  laws,  punishments,  and  the  public  exercise  of 
religious  duties."  This  seems  to  be  inverting  the  natural  order 
of  things.  Disregard  of  the  moral  law  would  result  in  endless 
evil,  and  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  its  commands  should 
be  observed  and  enforced  ;  but  the  obligation  of  the  law  does  not 
rest  on  that  necessity  ;  it  is  altogether  anterior  and  independent 
of  it.  So  the  right  of  property  is  anterior  and  independent  of 
the  necessity  of  its  being  held  sacred,  in  order  to  secure  the  well- 
being  of  mankind.  The  fact  is,  that  the  right  of  property  is 
analogous  to  the  right  of  life,  liberty,  or  pursuit  of  happiness. 
It  does  not  come  from  men  ;  it  is  not  given  by  man  ;  and  it  can- 
not be  ignored,  or  arbitrarily  interfered  with  by  man.  It  rests 
on  the  will  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature 
and  in  our  relation  to  persons  and  things  around  us. 

7.  Stahl,  the  distinguished  German  jurist,  gives  substantially 
the  foUowins:  account  of  the  matter.  Man  was  formed  out  of  the 
earth  ;  but  a  divine  spirit  was  breathed  into  him.  He  is,  there- 
fore, on  the  one  hand,  dependent  on  the  material  world ;  on  the 
other,  exalted  above  it.  He  is  placed  here  as  its  lord  and  owner. 
The  things  of  the  outer  world  are  given  to  him  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  his  physical  wants,  and  of  his  spiritual  necessities.  He, 
therefore,  has  power  and  right  over  things  external,  and  they 
must  be  permanently  and  securely  imder  his  control.  This  is  the 
foundation  of  the  right  of  projjerty.  Property  is  the  means  for 
the  development  of  the  individuality  of  the  man.  The  manner 
in  which  it  is  acquired  and  used,  reveals  what  the  man  is  ;  his 

1  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  ii.  i.  by  Sir  William  Blackstone,  Knt.  16tll 
edit.  London,  1825,  vol.  ii.  p.  10. 

2  lUd.  p.  7. 


426  PART   III.     Ch.  XIX.— the   law. 

food,  clothing,  and  habitation  ;  his  expenditures  for  sensual  enjoy- 
ment, for  objects  of  taste,  of  art,  and  of  science,  and  for  hospi- 
tality, benevolence,  and  the  good  of  society  ;  and  the  consecration 
of  his  acquisitions  to  the  interests  of  a  higher  Hfe,  —  these  in  their 
totality  as  they  rest  on  the  right  of  property,  make  out  a  man's 
portrait.  Property,  however,  is  specially  designed  to  enable  a 
man  to  discharge  his  moral  duties.  Every  man  has  duties  of  his 
own  to  perform  ;  duties  which  belong  to  him  alone,  not  to  others, 
not  to  society  ;  duties  which  arise  out  of  his  personal  vocation 
and  standing,  especially  such  as  belong  to  his  own  family.  There- 
fore he  must  have  what  is  exclusively  his  own.  Property,  there- 
fore, is  not  intended  for  mere  self -gratification  or  support ;  nor  is 
it  a.  mere  objectless  mastery  over  things  external ;  it  is  the  neces- 
sary means  to  enable  a  man  to  fulfil  his  divinely-appointed  des- 
tiny.    Herein  lies  the  divine  right  of  property  !  ^ 

The  right  of  property,  therefore,  is  not  founded  on  the  law  of 
the  land,  or  on  any  explicit  or  implied  contract  among  men  ;  but 
upon  the  law  of  nature.  It  is  true  that  natural,  as  distinguished 
from  positive  laws,  have  been  differently  explained.  "  As  the 
science  of  ethics,"  says  Lord  Mackenzie,  "  embraces  the  whole 
range  of  moral  duties,  its  province  is  evidently  much  -^^dder  than 
that  of  jurisprudence,  which  treats  only  of  those  duties  that  can 
be  enforced  by  external  law."  ^  The  duties,  however,  which  can 
be  thus  enforced  are  of  two  kinds  ;  those  which  arise  from  the 
natural,  and  those  which  arise  from  common  or  statute  law.  "  By 
the  law  of  nature,"  says  Chancellor  Kent,'^  "  I  understand  those 
fit  and  just  rules  of  conduct  which  the  Creator  has  prescribed  to 
man  as  a  dependent  and  social  being,  and  which  are  to  be  as- 
certained from  the  deduction  of  right  reason,  though  they  may  be 
more  precisely  known  and  more  explicitly  declared  by  divine  revela- 
tion." Cicero,  teaches  that  God  is  the  author  of  natural  law, 
and  that  its  duties  are  of  unchangeable  obligation.  He  says,  "  Nee 
erit  alia  lex  Romfe,  alia  Athenis,  alia  nunc,  alia  posthac ;  sed  et 
omnes  gentes  et  omni  tempore  una  lex  et  sempiterna  et  immu- 
tabilis  continebit,  unusque  erit  communis  quasi  magister  et  im- 
perator  omnium  deus."  * 

1  Die  Philosnphie  des  Rechts,  HecJits-  und  Staaiskhre,  i.  iii.  2,  1,  §  22,  4th  edit. 
Heidelberg,  1870,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  p.  350  f.  The  paragraph  in  the  text  is  not  a  transla- 
tion, but  a  condensation. 

■■2  Studies  in  Rnmnn  Law,  with  Comparative  Views  of  (he  Laws  of  France,  England,  and 
Scotland,  by  Lord  Mackenzie,  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Session  in  Scotland,  2d 
edit.  Edinburgh  and  London,  1865,  p.  45. 

8  Chancellor  Kent,  quoted  by  Lord  Mackenzie. 

*  De  Rejmblica,  iii.  xxii.  33.  IG,  edit.  Leipzig,  1850,  p.  1193,  a. 


§  12.]  THE   EIGHTH    COMMANDMENT.  427 

Lord  Mackenzie  gives  the  doctrine  of  Cicero  the  sanction 
of  his  own  judgment :  "  Where,"  he  says,  "  the  law  of  nature  ab- 
sohitely  commands  or  forbids,  it  is  immutable  and  of  universal 
obligation,  so  that,  although  it  may  be  confirmed,  it  cannot  be 
controlled  by  human  laws  without  a  manifest  violation  of  the 
divine  will."  ^ 

In  these  days,  when  so  many  are  disposed  to  throw  off  the  au- 
thority of  God,  and  regard  marriage  and  property  as  mere  creat- 
ures of  the  law,  which  may  be  regulated  or  ignored  at  the  caprice 
or  will  of  the  people,  it  is  well  to  remind  them  that  there  is  a  law 
higher  than  any  law  of  man,  enforced  by  the  authority  of  God, 
which  no  man  and  no  community  can  violate  with  impunity. 

Although  the  right  of  property  involves  the  right  of  absolute 
control,  so  that  a  man  can  do  what  he  will  with  his  own,  it  does 
not  follow  that  this  right  is  unlimited,  or  that  the  civil  law  has  no 
legitimate  control  over  the  use  or  distribution  of  his  property.  A 
man  has  no  right  to  use  his  knowledge  or  strength  to  the  injury 
of  his  fellow-men  ;  neither  can  he  use  his  property  so  as  to  make  it 
a  public  nuisance  ;  nor  can  he  devote  it  to  any  immoral  or  hurtful 
object ;  nor  can  he  dispose  of  it  by  will  so  as  to  militate  against 
the  public  policy.  Of  course,  as  different  nations  are  organized 
on  different  principles,  the  laws  regulating  the  use  and  distribution 
of  property  must  also  differ.  Among  the  Hebrews  the  land  of 
Canaan  was  originally  distributed  equitably  among  the  several 
families.  The  head  of  the  family  had  not  the  unrestricted  con- 
trol of  what  was  thus  given  him.  He  could  not  finally  alienate 
it.  His  sons,  not  his  daughters,  unless  there  were  no  sons,  were 
his  heirs.  The  first-born  had  a  double  portion.  (Dent.  xxi.  15  ff.) 
These  limitations  of  the  right  of  property  were  ordained  by  God, 
in  order  that  the  ends  of  the  theocracy  might  be  accomplished. 
God  saw  fit  to  render  it  impossible  that  any  large  portion  of  the 
land  should  be  engrossed  by  one  or  by  a  few  families.  In  Eng- 
land public  policy  has  assumed  that  it  is  important  to  maintain 
a  powerful  order  of  nobility.  To  secure  that  end  the  laws  of 
primogeniture  and  entail  have  been  long  in  force,  with  the  result 
that  the  greater  part  of  the  land  in  Great  Britain  is  in  the  hands 
of  comparatively  few  families.  This  unequal  distribution  of  prop- 
perty  has  gone  on  rapidly  increasing,  so  that  Hugh  Miller,  when 
editor  of  the  "  Edinburo-h  Witness,"  said  that  Enojland  was  now 
like  a  pyramid  poised  on  its  apex.  In  France  the  right  of  a  testator 
to  dispose  of  his  property  is  Yevj  much  limited.  "  If  any  one  die 
without  issue  or  ascendants,  he  may  leave  his  whole  property  to 

1  Studies  in  Roman  Law,  etc.,  p.  49. 


428  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX. —the   law. 

strangers ;  but  if  a  man  at  his  death  has  one  lawful  child,  he  can 
only  so  dispose  of  the  half  of  his  estate ;  if  he  leave  two  childi'en, 
the  third  ;  and  if  he  leave  three  or  more  children,  the  fourth." 
In  Scotland  "  if  a  man  die  without  either  wife  or  issue,  his  whole 
property  is  at  his  own  disposal ;  if  he  leave  a  wife  and  issue,  his 
goods  or  personal  projoerty  are  divided  into  three  equal  parts,  one 
of  which  goes  to  his  wife  as  jus  relictce,  another  to  his  children  as 
legitim  (i.  e.,  legitima  portio^,  and  the  third  is  at  his  own  disposal ; 
if  he  leave  no  wife,  he  may  dispose  of  one  half,  and  the  other  half 
goes  to  his  children,  and  so  e  converso,  if  he  leave  no  children,  the 
wife  is  entitled  to  one  half,  and  he  may  bequeath  the  other."  ^ 
These  facts  are  referred  to  simply  as  illustrations  of  the  way  in 
which  the  law,  both  divine  and  human,  may  limit  the  exercise  of 
the  right  of  property  while  the  sacredness  of  that  right,  as  higher 
than  any  human  law,  is  fully  recognized. 

Community  of  Goods. 

Community  of  goods  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  denial  of 
the  right  of  private  property.  When  Ananias,  having  sold  a 
possession,  kept  back  part  of  the  price,  Peter  said  to  him ; 
"  While  it  remained  was  it  not  thine  own  ?  and  after  it  was  sold, 
was  it  not  in  thine  own  power?"  (Acts  v.  4.)  Any  number  of 
men  may  agree  to  live  in  common,  putting  all  their  possessions 
and  all  the  fruits  of  their  labour  into  a  common  fund,  from  which 
each  member  is  supplied  according  to  his  wants.  This  experiment 
was  tried  on  a  small  scale  and  for  a  short  time,  by  the  early  Chris- 
tians in  Jerusalem.  "  The  multitude  of  them  that  believed  were 
of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul :  neither  said  any  of  them  that  ought 
of  the  things  which  he  possessed  was  his  own  ;  but  they  had  all 

things  common Neither  was  there  any  among  them  that 

lacked :  for  as  many  as  were  possessors  of  lands  or  houses,  sold 
them,  and  brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold,  and 
laid  them  down  at  the  Apostles'  feet :  and  distribution  was  made 
unto  every  man  as  he  had  need."  (Acts  iv.  32-35.)  Some  in- 
deed say  that  these  passages  do  not  imply  any  actual  community 
of  goods.  Having  "  all  things  common  "  is  understood  to  mean, 
"No  one  regarded  his  possessions  as  belonging  absolutely  to  him- 
self, but  as  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of  others  also."  This  interpreta- 
tion seems  inconsistent  ^vith  the  whole  nai'rative.  Those  who  had 
possessions  sold  them.  They  renounced  all  control  over  what  was 
once  their  own.  The  price  was  handed  over  to  the  Apostles  and 
distributed  by  them  or  under  their  direction. 

1  Lord  Mackenzie,  iit  supra,  p.  270. 


§  12.]  THE   EIGHTH    COMMANDMENT.  429 

On  the  narrative  as  given  in  the  Acts  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  the  conduct  of  these  early  Christians  was  purely  spon- 
taneous. They  were  not  commanded  by  the  Apostles  to  sell  their 
possessions  and  to  have  all  things  in  common.  There  is  not  the 
shghtest  intimation  that  the  Apostles  gave  any  encouragement  to 
this  movement.  They  seem  simply  to  have  permitted  it.  They 
allowed  the  people  to  act  under  the  imp'ulse  of  their  own  feelings, 
each  one  doing  what  he  pleased  with  his  own. 

2.  It  can  hardly  be  deemed  unnatural  that  the  early  Christians 
were  led  into  this  experiment.  To  us  the  wonders  of  redemption 
are  "  the  old,  old  story,"  inexpressibly  precious  indeed,  but  it  has 
lost  the  power  of  novelty.  In  those  to  whom  it  was  new  it  may 
well  have  produced  an  ecstatic  bewilderment,  which  led  their 
judgment  astray.  There  are  two  great  truths  involved  in  the 
Gospel,  the  clear  perception  of  which  may  account  for  the  deter- 
mination of  those  early  converts  to  have  all  things  in  common. 
The  one  is  that  all  believers  are  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  all 
united  to  Him  by  the  mdwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  all  equally 
partakers  of  his  righteousness  ;  all  the  objects  of  his  love  ;  and  all 
destined  to  the  same  inheritance  of  glory.  The  other  great  truth 
is  contained  in  the  words  of  Christ,  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done 
it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto 
me."  It  was  no  wonder,  then,  that  men  whose  minds  were  filled 
with  these  truths,  were  oblivious  of  mere  prudential  consider- 
ations. 

3.  This  experiment,  for  all  that  appears,  was  confined  to  the 
Christians  in  Jerusalem,  and  was  soon  abandoned.  We  never 
hear  of  it  elsewhere  or  afterwards.  It  has,  therefore,  no  precep- 
tive force. 

4.  The  conditions  of  the  success  of  this  plan,  on  any  large 
scale,  cannot  be  found  on  earth.  It  supposes  something  near  per- 
fection in  all  embraced  within  the  compass  of  its  operation.  It 
supposes  that  men  will  labour  as  assiduously  without  the  stimulus 
of  the  desire  to  improve  their  condition  and  to  secure  the  welfare 
of  their  families  as  with  it.  It  supposes  absolute  disinterested- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  more  wealthy,  the  stronger,  or  the  more 
able  members  of  the  community.  They  must  be  willing  to 
forego  all  personal  advantages  from  their  sup  jrior  endowments. 
It  supposes  perfect  integrity  on  the  part  of  the  distributors  of  the 
common  fund,  and  a  spirit  of  moderation  and  contentment  in  each 
member  of  the  community,  to  be  satisfied  with  what  others,  and 
not  he,  may  think  to  be  his  equitable  share.     We  shall  have  to 


430  PART  III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

wait  till  the  millennium  before  these  conditions  can  be  fulfilled. 
The  attempt  to  introduce  a  general  community  of  goods  in  the 
present  state  of  the  world,  instead  of  elevating  the  poor,  would 
reduce  the  whole  mass  of  society  to  a  common  level  of  barbarism 
and  poverty.  The  only  secure  basis  of  society  is  in  those  immut- 
able principles  of  right  and  duty  which  God  has  revealed  in  his 
Word,  and  written  upon' the  hearts  of  men.  And  these  truths, 
even  if  acknowledged  as  matters  of  opinion,  lose  their  authority 
and  power  if  they  cease  to  be  regarded  as  revelations  of  the  mind 
and  will  of  God,  to  which  human  reason  and  human  conduct 
must  conform. 

Communism  and  Socialism. 

'  Heaven  is  not  higher  thanj'  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,"  than 
the  principles  and  aims  of  the  early  Cliristians  were  exalted  above 
those  of  the  modern  advocates  of  the  community  of  goods.  This 
idea  is  not  of  modern  origin.  It  appears  in  different  forms  in  all 
ages  of  the  world.  It  entered  into  the  scheme  of  Plato's  Republic, 
for  in  his  view  private  property  was  the  chief  source  of  all  social 
evils.  It  was  included  in  the  monasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Renunciation  of  the  world  included  the  renmiciation  of  all  prop- 
erty. Voluntary  poverty  was  one  of  the  vows  of  all  monastic  in- 
stitutions. It  was  adopted  by  many  of  the  mystical  and  fanatical 
sects  which  appeared  before  the  Reformation,  as  the  Beghards, 
and  "  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit,"  who  taught  that  the  world 
should  be  restored  to  its  paradisiacal  state,  and  that  all  the  dis- 
tinctions created  by  law,  whether  of  social  organization,  property, 
or  marriage,  should  be  done  away.  At  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion the  followers  of  Miinzer  adopted  the  same  principles,  and 
their  efforts  to  carry  them  into  practice  led  to  the  miseries  of  the 
"  peasant-war."  All  these  movements  were  connected  'with  fa- 
natical religious  doctrines.  The  leaders  of  these  sects  claimed 
to  be  inspired,  and  represented  themselves  as  the  organs  and 
messengers  of  God. 

Modern  comnmnism,  on  the  contrary,  so  far  as  its  general  char- 
acter is  concerned,  is  materialistic  and  atheistic,  and  m  some-  of  its 
forms  pantheistic.  ^     This  is  consistent  with  the  admission  that 

1  Enfaiitin,  a  disciple  of  St.  Simon,  began  one  of  his  public  discourses,  delivered  in  Paris 
ia  1831,  with  the  words,  "Dieu  est  tout  ce  qui  est;  Tout  est  en  lui,  tout  est  par  lui,  Kul  de 
nous  n'est  hors  de  lui;  "  and  Henri  Heine  called  himself  a  Hegelian.  On  the  other  hand, 
one  of  St.  Simon's  books  is  entitled  Le  nouvenii  Christianisme.  See  Guerike's  Kir- 
ch en- Geschichte,  VII.  D.  §  220,  6th  edit.  Leipzig,  184G,  vol.  iii.  p.  679,  foot-notes.  \\c  are 
tempted  to  quote  a  single   characteristic  sentence  from  Guerike,  ut  supra,  pp.  678-C82: 


§  12.]  THE   EIGHTH   COMMANDMENT.  431 

some  of  its  advocates,  as  St.  Simon,  Fourier,  and  others,  were 
sincere  and  benevolent  men.  Some  of  them,  indeed,  said  that 
they  only  desired  to  carry  out  the  principle  of  brotherly  love 
so  often  inculcated  by  Christ.  Communism  and  socialism  are 
not  properly  convertible  terms,  although  often  used  to  desig- 
nate the  same  system.  The  one  has  reference  more  esj)e- 
cially  to  the  principle  of  community  in  property ;  the  latter  to 
the  mode  of  social  organization.  With  Fourier,  the  former  was 
subordinate  to  the  latter.  He  did  not  entirely  deny  the  right 
of  property,  but  insisted  that  society  was  badly  organized.  In- 
stead of  living  in  distinct  families,  each  struggling  for  support 
and  advancement,  men  should  be  gathered  in  large  associations 
having  common  property,  and  all  labouring  for  a  common  fund. 
That  fund  was  to  be  distributed  according  to  the  capital  contrib- 
uted by  each  member,  and  according  to  the  time  and  skill  em- 
ployed in  the  common  service.  Proudhon,  immortahzed  by  the 
book  in  which  the  question  "  What  is  property  ?  "  is  answered  by 
saying,  "  Property  is  theft,"  makes  the  rule  for  the  distribution 
of  the  common  fund  to  be  the  time  devoted  to  labour.  Louis 
Blanc  puts  capital,  labour,  and  skill  out  of  consideration,  and 
makes  the  wants  of  the  individual  the  only  rule  of  distribution. 
It  is  common  to  all  these  schemes  that  the  right  to  property  in 
land  or  its  productions  is  denied.  The  two  latter  deny  to  a  man 
all  property  in  his  own  skill  or  talents ;  and  the  last,  even  in  his 
labour,  so  that  the  idlest  and  least  efficient  member  of  society 

"  Die  originellste  und  selbstiindigste  re]igi<is-politipche  Secte  der  neuesten  Zeit  aber,  von 
einein  Manne  gegritndet,  dem  erst  durch  verungllickten,  Selbstniord  '  der  gtittliche  Mensch 
[Bich  kund  that '  (dem  franzisischen  Grafeii  Claude  Henri  St.  Simou,  geb.  zu  Paris  1760,  gest. 
[am  19.  Mai  1825),  und  sodann  durch  die  .luli-Revolution  1830  erst  in  rechten  Scliwung 
igebracht,  welche,  als  die  Quintessenz  des  tief  verderbten  antichristischen  Zeitgeistes,  als 
[die  einzigganz  consequente  unter  alien  widergottlichen  Richtungeu  der  Zeit,  Welt  und  Gott, 
jStaat  und  Kirche,  Fleisch  und  Geist,  Diesseits  und  Jenseits,  Biise  und  Gut,  (auch  Weib 
[und  Mann)  sowohl  wissenschaftlisch  als  praktisch  unirte  und  identiticirte,  unbeschriinkte 
Ivollstiindig  organisirte  Herrschaft  des  widergiittlichen  Fleisches,  ungebundenes  system- 
latisches  Leben  nur  fiirdiesseitige  (dieeinzige)  Welt,  unbediugte  Geltung  eines  consequenten 
politisch-religiisen  Materialismus  in  gliihender  Beredtsamkeit  predigte,  und  auf  den  Thron 
[des  heiligen  Gottes  den  'reizenden'  Fiirsten  dieser  Welt  setzte,  woUte  nicht  etwa  eine 
tchristliche  Parthei  oder  Secte,  sondern  die  neue  Welt-religion  sein;  und  diese  seligen 
f'Menschen  der  Zukunft,'  so  verschollen  auch  mit  all  ihrer  abenteuerlich  glanzenden 
[  Aeusserlichkeit  sie  wieder  fiir  den  Moment  sind, — aber  in  einem  '  Jiingen-Deutschland,' 
I  (zuerst  1834  und  besonders  1835)  sowie  im  vollkommen  organisirten  englischen  Socialisten- 
jundinden  continentalischen  Communisten-Vereinen,  und  nun  nach  modischerem  Schnitt, 
[verjiingt  auch  bereits  wider  erstanden,  und  in  alierlei  neuen  Formen  stets  neu  ersteheud, — 
bahnten  so  einer  fiirchterlichen  Weltepoche  den  griisslich  anmuthigen  Weg."  Unless  the 
[  reader  is  somewhat  accustomed  to  find  his  way  through  the  mazes  of  Dr.  Guerike's  sen- 
tences, lie  may  experience  some  difficulty  in  threading  the  above  labyrinth.  It  is,  how- 
ever, interesting,  as  characteristic  of  the  mau  and  of  his  book.  One  of  his  couulrymen 
called  his  history  a  Strafpredigt. 


432  rx\.RT   m.     Cii.   XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

should,  according  to  it,  receive  as  mucli  as  the  most  industrious 
and  useful. 

The  denial  of  the  right  of  property  is,  to  a  great  extent,  con- 
nected with  the  rejection  of  religion  and  of  marriage.  INIarriage, 
next  to  religion  and  property,  was  declared  to  be  the  greatest 
means  of  social  misery.  Children  were  not  to  belong  to  their 
parents,  but  to  the  state  ;  inclination  and  enjoyment  were  to  be 
the  motive  and  the  end  and  the  rule  of  life.^ 

International  Society. 

France  has  been  the  birthplace  and  the  principal  seat  of  Com- 
munism in  its  modern  form.  The  principles  involved  in  the  sys- 
tem have  made  wide  progress  in  other  countries,  and  leavened  to 
a  fearful  extent  the  minds  of  the  labouring  classes  both  in  Europe 
and  in  America.  Organization  and  combination  among  the  scat- 
tered millions  said  to  be  included  in  the  membership  of  this  soci- 
ety have  given  it  an  importance  which  has  forced  itself  on  the 
attention  of  almost  all  Christian  states.  What  the  principles 
and  aims  of  this  formidable  body  are,  it  is  not  easy  satisfactorily 
to  state.  There  has  been  no  authoritative  annunciation  of  prin- 
ciples recognized  by  all  the  affiliated  societies.  They  differ,  within 
certain  limits,  doubtless,  among  themselves.  Some  find  their  fit 
representatives  in  the  Communists  of  Paris  as  they  revealed  them- 
selves during  the  current  year  (1871).  Others  would  shrink 
from  the  excesses  which  rendered  the  name  of  Communists  an 
object  of  execration  and  abhorrence  in  all  parts  of  the  civilized 
world.  Enough,  however,  is  known  of  the  designs  of  the  society 
in  question,  to  render  it  certain  that  its  success  would  involve  the 
overthrow  of  all  existing  governments  ;  in  placing  all  power  in 
the  hands,  not  of  the  people,  but  of  a  particular  class,  the  opera- 
tives, the  proletariat  (the  men  without  land)  ;  in  the  dissolution 
of  society  as  at  present  organized  ;  the  abolition  of  private  prop- 
erty ;  the  extinction  of  the  family ;  the  abrogation  of  all  mar- 
riage laws  ;  and  the  proscription  of  religion,  and  especially  of 
Christianity,  as  a  public  evil.  Such  are  the  avowed  objects  of 
some  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement,  and  such  are  the  logical 
consequences  of  the  principles  advocated  by  the  more  reticent  of 
their  number. 

1  See  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie,  art.  "  Communismus  und  Socialismus."  Stalil'a 
Phllosophie  des  Jiechts,  Rechts- und  StnatfUhre,  I.  iii.  2.  2.  §§  31-34;  4tli  edit.  Heidel. 
berg,  1870,  vol.  ii.  part  1.  pp.  367-370.  Cyrlopttdia  of  Biblical,  Theoloc/iad,  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Literature,  prepared  by  the  Rev.  Jolin  ]\IcClintock,  D.  D.,  and  James  Strong,  S. 
T.  D.,  New  York,  18G9,  art.  "  Comnumisni  "  The  Cyclopiudias  above  referred  to  give 
copious  references  to  the  literature  of  this  subject. 


§  12.]  THE   EIGHTH   COMMANDMENT.  433 

It  is  a  historical  fact  that  Communism  had  its  origin  in  its 
modern  form  in  materialistic  atheism  ;  in  the  denial  of  God,  who 
has  the  right  to  give  laws  to  men,  and  the  power  and  the  purpose 
to  enforce  those  laws  by  the  retributions  of  justice ;  in  the  belief 
that  the  present  life  is  the  whole  period  of  existence  allotted  to 
men  ;  and  that  the  enjoyments  of  this  life  are,  therefore,  all  that 
men  have  to  desire  or  expect.  These  principles  had  long  been 
inculcated  by  such  men  as  Rousseau,  Voltaire,  d'Holbach,  Diderot, 
and  others.  To  produce  a  conflagration,  however,  there  must 
be  not  only  fire,  but  combustible  materials.  These  materialistic 
principles  would  have  floated  about  as  mere  speculations,  had 
there  not  been  such  a  mass  of  suffering  and  degradation  among 
the  people.  It  was  minds  burdened  with  the  consciousness  of 
misery  and  the  sense  of  injustice  which  were  inflamed  by  the  new 
doctrines,  and  which  burst  forth  in  a  fire  that  for  a  time  set  all 
Europe  in  a  blaze.  We  must  not  attribute  all  the  evil  either  to 
the  infidels  or  to  the  people.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  preceding 
centuries  of  cruelty  and  oppression,  France  had  not  furnished  such 
a  bloody  page  to  the  history  of  modern  Europe. 

"  LTnternationale  "  for  March  27th,  1870,  expressed  succinctly 
the  object  of  the  International  Society :  "  The  rights  of  the  work- 
ing-men, that  is  our  principle ;  the  organization  of  the  working- 
men,  that  is  our  means  of  action  ;  social  revolution,  that  is  our 
end."  It  is  "  working-men,"  artisans,  not  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple, educated  or  uneducated ;  but  a  single  class  whose  interests 
are  to  be  regarded.  It  is  not  a  political  revolution,  the  change  of 
one  form  of  government  for  another,  that  is  the  end  aimed  at ;  but 
a  social  revolution,  a  complete  upturning  of  the  existing  order  of 
society. 

As  this  institution  is  looming  up  with  such  portentous  aspect  in 
every  direction,  the  question  is.  How  is  it  to  be  met,  and  its  influ- 
ence counteracted  ?  Open  outbreaks  may  be  suppressed  by  force, 
but  the  evil  cannot  be  healed  by  any  such  means.  Artillery  is 
inefficient  against  opinions.  If  Communism,  as  organized  in  this 
society,  owes  its  origin  to  the  causes  above  specified,  the  rational 
method  of  procedure  is,  to  correct  or  remove  those  causes.  If 
Communism  is  the  product  of  materialistic  Atheism,  its  cure  is 
to  be  found  in  Theism  ;  in  bringing  the  people  to  know  and  be- 
lieve that  there  is  a  God  on  whom  they  are  dependent  and  to 
whom  they  are  responsible  ;  in  teaching  them  that  this  is  not  the 
only  li  fe,  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  and  that  men  will  be  rewarded 
or  punished  in  the  world  to  come  according  to  their  character  and 
vol:  III.  28 


434  PART  III.     Cu.  XIX.  — THE   LAW. 

conduct  in  the  present  life  ;  that  consequently  well-being  here  is 
not  the  highest  end  of  existence ;  that  the  poor  here  may  here- 
after be  far  more  blessed  than  their  rich  neighbours  ;  and  that  it 
is  better  to  be  Lazarus  than  Dives.  It  will  be  necessary  to  bring 
them  to  believe  that  there  is  a  divine  providence  over  the  aiiairs 
of  the  world ;  that  events  are  not  determined  by  the  blind  opera- 
tion of  physical  causes ;  but  that  God  reigns  ;  that  He  distributes 
to  every  one  severally  as  He  pleases  ;  "  that  the  Lord  maketh 
poor  and  maketh  rich ; "  that  it  is  not  the  rich  and  the  noble, 
but  the  poor  and  the  lowly,  that  are  his  special  favourites ;  and 
that  the  right  of  property,  the  right  of  marriage,  tlie  rights  of 
parents  and  magistrates,  are  all  ordained  by  God,  and  cannot  be 
violated  without  mcurring  his  displeasure  and  the  certain  inflic- 
tion of  divine  punishment.  To  imbue  the  minds  of  tlie  mass  of 
the  people,  especially  in  great  cities,  "will  be  a  slow  and  difficult 
work  ;  but  it  is  absolutely  necessary.  If  Materialism  and  Athe- 
ism are  practically  embraced  by  the  mass  of  any  community,  it 
will  inevitably  perish.  The  religious  training  of  the  people,  how- 
ever, is  only  one  half  of  the  task  which  society  has  to  accomplish, 
to  secure  its  own  existence  and  prosperity.  The  great  body  of 
the  people  must  be  rendered  comfortable,  or  at  least  have  the 
means  of  becoming  so  ;  and  they  must  be  treated  with  justice. 
Misery  and  a  sense  of  wrong  are  the  two  great  disturbing  ele- 
ments in  the  minds  of  the  people.  They  are  the  slumbering  fires 
which  are  ever  ready  to  break  out  into  destructive  conflagration. 

Violations  of  the  Eighth  Commandment. 

It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  society  is  more  in  danger  frum 
the  destructive  principles  of  Commmiism,  than  from  the  secret  or 
tolerated  frauds  which,  to  so  great  an  extent,  pervade  almost  all 
the  departments  of  social  life.  If  this  commandment  forbids  all 
unfair  or  unjust  appropriation  of  the  property  of  others  to  our 
own  use  or  advantage,  if  every  such  appropriation  is  steahng  in 
the  sight  of  God,  then  theft  is  the  most  common  of  all  the  out- 
ward transgressions  of  the  decalogue.  It  includes  not  merely 
vulgar  theft  such  as  the  law  can  detect  and  punish,  but,  —     - 

1.  All  false  pretences  in  matters  of  business  ;  representing  an 
article  proposed  for  purchase  or  exchange  to  be  other  and  better 
than  it  is.  This  includes  a  multitude  of  sins.  Articles  produced 
at  home  are  sold  as  foreign  productions,  and  the  price  asked  and 
given  is  determined  by  this  fraudulent  representation.  Shawls  of 
Paris  are  sold  as  Indian ;  wines  manufactured  in  this  country  are 


§12.]  THE   EIGHTH   COMMANDMENT.  435 

sold  as  the  pi-oductioiis  of  France,  Portugal,  or  Madeira.  It  is 
said  that  more  Champagne  wine  is  drunk  in  Russia  than  is  made 
in  France.  More  cigars  are  consumed  in  this  country,  under  the 
name  of  Havanas,  than  Cuba  produces.  A  great  part  of  the 
paper  made  in  the  United  States  bears  the  stamp  of  London  or 
Bristol.  This  kind  of  fraud  has  scarcely  any  limit.  It  does  not 
seem  to  disturb  any  man's  conscience.  Worse  than  this  is  the 
selling  things  as  sound  and  genuine,  which  in  fact  are  spurious 
and  often  worthless.  So  wide-spread  is  fraud  in  matters  of  trade 
that  it  has  become  a  legal  maxim,  "  Let  the  buyer  take  care  of 
hhnself."  He  should  expect  to  be  cheated,  and  therefore  is  re- 
quired to  be  always  on  his  guard.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear 
men  say  to  a  clergyman,  "  If  I  were  dealing  with  a  man  of  busi- 
ness, I  would  of  course  try  to  cheat  him  ;  for  I  know  he  would 
try  to  cheat  me.  But  as  you  are  not  a  man  of  business,  I  make 
an  exception  in  your  case,  and  will  deal  honestly." 

Under  this  head  of  false  pretences  comes  the  adulteration  of 
articles  of  food,  of  medicine,  and  of  the  materials  for  clothing. 
The  extent  to  which  this  is  carried  is  fearful.  The  English  Parlia- 
ment not  long  since  appointed  a  commission  to  examine  into  the 
adulterations  of  articles  of  food  sold  by  the  green  grocers  in 
London.  The  result  of  the  examination  was  that  only  six  out  of 
every  hundred  of  the  specimens  collected  were  pure,  i.  e,,  were 
what  they  were  represented  or  declared  to  be.  There  is  no  reason 
oo  suppose  that  London  is  peculiar  or  preeminent  in  this  kind  of 
fraud.  The  same  complaint  is  made  of  the  adulteration  of  drugs. 
This  evil  was  so  great  that  some  governments  have  taken  the  prep- 
aration of  medicine  for  their  navies  and  armies  into  their  own 
hands.  If  we  are  to  believe  the  public  papers,  the  greater  part 
of  the  wines  and  other  liquors,  spirituous  and  malt,  sold  to  the 
public,  are  not  only  adulterated  but  mixed  with  poisonous  drugs. 

I  The  clothing  furnished  soldiers  in  active  service,  exposed  to  all 
the  severities,  and  changes  of  weather,  was  and  often  is,  made  of 
worthless  materials.  There  would  be  no  end  to  the  enumeration 
of  frauds  of  this  kind.  A  prominent  English  journal  recently 
said  that  the  great  part  of  the  revenue  of  the  British  government 
was  taken  up  in  endeavouring  to  prevent  and  detect  frauds  against 
the  public. 
2.  Another  large  class  of  violations  of  the  eighth  command- 
ment comprises  attempts  to  take  undue  advantage  of  the  ignor- 
ance or  of  the  necessities  of  our  fellow-men.  It  is  of  the  nature 
of  theft  if  a  man  sells  an  article  knowing  it  to  be  of  less  value 


436  PART  m.   ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

than  lie  to  whom  he  offers  it  for  sale  takes  it  to  be.  If  a  man  is 
aware  that  the  credit  of  a  bank  is  impaired,  or  that  the  affairs  of 
a  railroad,  or  of  any  other  corporation,  are  embarrassed,  and  takes 
advantage  of  that  knowledge,  to  dispose  of  the  stock  or  notes  of 
Such  corporations  to  those  ignorant  on  the  subject,  demanding 
more  for  them  than  their  actual  worth,  he  is  guilty  of  theft,  if  the 
command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  forbids  all  unfair  acquisition 
of  the  property  of  our  neighbour.  In  like  manner  all  unfair  at- 
tempts to  enhance  or  depress  the  value  of  articles  of  commerce, 
are  violations  of  the  law  of  God.  Unfounded  reports  are  often 
designedly  circulated  to  have  this  enhancing  or  depressing  effect 
on  values,  so  that  advantage  may  be  taken  of  the  unwary  or  un- 
informed. It  is  an  offence  of  the  same  kind  to  engross  commodi- 
ties to  enhance  their  price.  "  He  that  withholdeth  corn,  the 
people  shall  curse  him  :  but  blessing  shall  be  upon  the  head  of  him 
that  selleth  it."  (Prov.  xi.  26.)  Again  it  is  a  violation  of  the  law 
to  take  advantage  of  the  necessities  of  our  fellow-men  and  to 
demand  an  exorbitant  price  for  what  they  may  need.  In  the 
recent  dreadful  conflagration  in  Chicago  a  thousand  dollars  were 
demanded  for  the  use  of  a  horse  and  wagon  for  a  single  hour.  It 
may  be  said  that  there  is  no  fixed  standard  of  value ;  that  a  thing 
may  be  worth  what  it  costs  the  man  who  o^vns  it ;  or  what  it  is 
worth  to  the  man  who  demands  it ;  or  what  it  will  bring  in  open 
market.  If  an  hour's  use  of  the  horse  and  wagon  was  worth 
more  to  the  man  in  Chicago  than  a  thousand  dollars,  it  may  be 
said  that  it  was  not  unfair  to  demand  that  sum.  If  this  be  sOj 
then  if  a  man  perishing  of  thirst  is  willing  to  give  his  whole 
estate  for  a  glass  of  water,  it  would  be  right  to  exact  that  price ; 
or  if  a  man  in  dangler  of  drownincj  should  offer  a  thousand  dollars 
for  a  rope,  we  might  refuse  to  throw  it  to  him  for  a  less  reward. 
Such  conduct  every  man  feels  would  be  worthy  of  execration. 
The  fact  is  that  things  have  an  intrinsic  value,  however  deter- 
mined, which  cannot  be  enhanced  because  our  suffering  fellow-men 
may  be  in  pressing  need  of  them. 

3.  This  commandment  forbids  also  depriving  men  of  property, 
on  the  ground  of  any  mere  technical  flaw,  or  legal  defect  in  their 
title.  Such  defect  may  be  the  effect  of  unavoidable  ignorance  ; 
or  loss  by  shipwreck,  fire,  theft,  or  other  so  called  accident,  of  the 
evidence  of  their  right.  The  law  may  in  such  cases  be  inexora- 
ble :  it  may  be  on  the  Avhole  right  that  it  should  be  so,  but  never- 
theless the  man  who  avails  himself  of  such  defect  to  get  possession 
of  his  neighbom-'s  .property,  breaks   the  command  which    says, 


§  13.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  437 

"  Thou  slialt  not  steal ; "  i.  e.,  thou  shalt  not  take  what  in  the  sight 
of  God  does  not  belong  to  you.  Gambling  falls  under  the  same 
category  where  advantage  is  taken  of  the  unwary  or  unskilful,  to 
deprive  them  of  their  property  without  compensation.  It  is,  how- 
ever, impossible  to  enumerate  or  to  classify  the  various  methods 
of  fraud.  The  code  of  morals  held  by  many  business  and  profes- 
sional men  is  very  far  below  the  moral  law  as  revealed  in  the 
Bible.  This  is  especially  true  in  reference  to  the  eighth  command- 
ment in  the  decalogue.  Many  who  have  stood  well  in  society, 
and  even  in  the  Church,  will  be  astonished  at  the  last  day  to  find 
the  word  "  Thieves  "  ^\^:itten  after  their  names  in  the  great  book 
of  judgment. 

§  13.   The  Ninth  Commandment. 

This  commandment  forbids  all  violations  of  the  obligations  of 
veracity.  The  most  aggravated  of  this  class  of  offences  is  bearing 
false  witness  against  our  neighbour.  But  this  includes  every  of- 
fence of  the  same  general  character  ;  as  the  command  thou  shalt 
not  kill,  forbids  all  indulgence  or  manifestation  of  malice. 

The  command  to  keep  truth  inviolate  belongs  to  a  different  class 
from  those  relating  to  the  Sabbath,  to  marriage,  or  to  property. 
These  are  founded  on  the  permanent  relations  of  men  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  existence.  They  are  not  in  their  own  nature  im- 
mutable. God  may  at  any  time  suspend  or  modify  them.  But 
truth  is  at  all  times  sacred,  because  it  is  one  of  the  essential  at- 
tributes of  God,  so  that  whatever  militates  against,  or  is  hostile 
to  truth  is  in  opposition  to  the  very  nature  of  God.  Truth  is,  so 
to  speak,  the  very  substratum  of  Deity.  It  is  in  such  a  sense  the 
foundation  of  all  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  that  without  it 
they  cannot  be  conceived  of  as  existing.  Unless  God  really  is 
what  He  declares  Himself  to  be ;  unless  He  means  what  He  de- 
clares Himself  to  mean  ;  unless  He  will  do  what  He  promises,  the 
whole  idea  of  God  is  lost.  As  there  is  no  God  but  the  true 
God,  so  without  truth  there  is  and  can  be  no  God.  As  this  at- 
tribute is  the  foundation,  so  to  speak,  of  the  divine,  so  it  is  the 
foundation  of  the  physical  and  moral  order  of  the  universe.  What 
is  the  immutability  of  the  laws  of  nature,  but  a  revelation  of  the 
truth  of  God  ?  They  are  manifestations  of  his  purposes.  They 
are  promises  on  which  his  creatures  rely,  and  by  which  they  must 
regulate  their  conduct.  If  those  laws  were  capricious,  if  the  same 
effects  did  not  uniformly  follow  from  the  same  causes,  the  very  ex- 
istence of  living  beings  would  be  impossible.    The  food  of  one  day 


438  PART  ITT.     Cii.   XIX.  — THE   LAAV. 

miglit  be  poison  the  next.  If  a  man  did  not  reap  what  he  sowed, 
there  could  be  no  security  for  anything.  The  truth  of  God,  there- 
fore, is  wi'itten  on  the  heavens.  It  is  the  daily  proclamation  made 
by  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  in  their  solemn  procession  through 
space,  and  it  is  echoed  back  by  the  earth  and  all  that  it  contains. 

The  truth  of  God,  too,  is  the  foundation  of  all  knowledge. 
How  do  we  know  that  our  senses  do  not  deceive  us  ;  that  conscious- 
ness is  not  mendacious  ?  that  the  laws  of  belief  which  by  the  con- 
stitution of  our  nature  we  are  forced  to  obey,  are  not  false  guides  ? 
Unless  God  be  true  there  can  be  no  certainty  in  anything ;  much 
less  can  there  be  any  security ;  we  can  have  no  confidence  in  the 
future :  no  assurance  that  evil  will  not  ultimately  triumph  over 
good,  darkness  over  light,  and  confusion  and  misery  over  order 
and  happiness.  There  is,  therefore,  something  awfully  sacred  in 
the  obligations  of  truth.  A  man  who  violates  the  truth,  sins 
against  the  very  foundation  of  his  moral  being.  As  a  false  god 
is  no  god,  so  a  false  man  is  no  man ;  he  can  never  be  what  man 
was  designed  to  be  ;  he  can  never  answer  the  end  of  his  being. 
There  can  be  in  him  nothing  that  is  stable,  trustworthy,  or  good. 

There  are  two  classes  of  sins  which  the  ninth  commandment 
forbids.  The  first  is,  all  forms  of  detraction ;  everything  which 
is  unjustly  or  unnecessarily  injurious  to  our  neighbour's  good 
name ;  and  the  second,  all  violations  of  the  laws  of  truth.  This 
latter,  indeed,  includes  the  former.  Bearing  false  witness,  how- 
ever, being  the  definite  thing  forbidden,  should  be  separately  con- 
sidered. 

Detraction. 

The  highest  form  of  this  offence  is  bearing  false  testimony  in  a 
court  of  justice.  This  includes  the  guilt  of  malice,  falsehood, 
and  mockery  of  God  ;  and  its  commission  justly  renders  a  man  in- 
famous, and  places  him  outside  of  the  pale  of  society.  As  it 
strikes  at  the  security  of  character,  property,  and  even  of  life,  it 
is  an  offence  which  cannot  be  passed  by  with  impunity.  The 
false  swearer  is,  therefore,  a  criminal  in  the  sight  of  the  civil  law, 
and  subject  to  public  disgrace  and  punishment. 

Slander  is  an  offence  of  the  same  character.  It  differs  from 
the  sin  of  bearing  false  witness,  only  in  not  being  committed  in  a 
judicial  process,  and  in  not  being  attended  by  the  same  effects. 
The  slanderer,  however,  does  bear  false  witness  against  his  neigh- 
bour. He  does  it  in  the  ears  of  the  public,  and  not  in  those  of  a 
jury.  The  offence  includes  the  elements  of  malice  and  falsehood 
against  which  thi'   command  is  specially  directed.     The  circula* 


I  13.]  THE   NINTH    COIVIMANDMENT.  439 

tiofi  of  false  reports,  "  tale-bearing,"  as  it  is  called  in  Scripture, 
is  indicative  of  the  same  state  of  mind,  and  comes  under  tlie 
same  condemnation.  As  the  law  of  God  takes  cognizance  of  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  in  condemning  an  external  act 
it  condemns  the  disposition  which  tends  to  produce  it.  In  con- 
demning all  speaking  ill  of  our  neighbour,  the  Scriptures  condemn 
a  suspicious  temper,  a  disposition  to  impute  bad  motives,  and  an 
un^villingness  to  believe  that  men  are  sincere  and  honest  in  the 
avowal  of  their  principles  and  aims.  This  is  the  opposite  of  that 
charity  which  "thinketh  no  evil,"  "  believeth  all  things,  hopeth 
all  things."  It  is  still  more  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  this  law, 
that  we  should  cherish  or  express  satisfaction  in  the  disgrace  of 
others,  even  if  they  be  our  competitors  or  enemies.  We  are  com- 
manded to  "  rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice  and  weep  with  them 
that  weep."     (Rom.  xii.  15.) 

The  usages  of  life,  or  the  principles  of  professional  men,  allow 
of  many  things  which  are  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  require- 
mants  of  the  ninth  commandment.  Lord  Brougham  is  reported 
to  have  said  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  an  advocate  knows  no 
one  but  his  client.  He  is  bound  per  fas  et  nefas,  if  possible,  to 
clear  him.  If  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  object, 
he  is  at  liberty  to  accuse  and  defame  the  innocent,  and  even  (as 
the  report  stated)  to  ruin  his  country.^  It  is  not  unusual,  espe- 
cially in  trials  for  murder,  for  the  advocates  of  the  accused  to 
charge  the  crime  on  innocent  parties  and  to  exert  all  their  in- 
genuity to  convince  the  jury  of  their  guilt.  This  is  a  cruel  and 
wicked  injustice,  a  clear  violation  of  the  command  which  says, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbour." 

Falsehood. 

1.  The  simplest  and  most  comprehensive  definition  of  falsehood 
is,  enunciatio  falsi.  This  enunciation  need  not  be  verbal.  A 
sign  or  gesture  may  be  as  significant  as  a  word.  If,  to  borrow 
Paley's  illustration,  a  man  is  asked  which  of  two  roads  is  the 
right  one  to  a  given  place,  and  he  intentionally  points  to  the 
wrong  one,  he  is  as  guilty  of  falsehood  as  if  he  had  given  the 
wrong  directions  in  words.  This  is  true  ;  nevertheless  there  is  a 
power  peculiar  to  words.     A  thought,  a  feeling,  or  a  conviction 

1  Lord  Brougham,  according  to  the  public  papers,  altered  these  sentiments  in  vindica- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  tlie  famous  Irisii  advocate  Phillips,  who  on  the  trial  of  Courvoisier 
for  the  murder  of  Lord  Russell,  endeavored  to  fasten  the  guilt  on  the  butler  and  housemaid, 
whom  he  knew  to  be  innocent,  as  his  client  had  confessed  to  him  that  he  had  committed 
the  crime. 


440  PART  in.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

is  not  only  more  clearly  revealed  in  the  consciousness  when  clothed 
in  words,  but  it  is  thereby  strengthened.  Every  man  feels  this 
when  he  says,  "  I  believe  ;  "  or,  "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
hveth." 

2.  The  above  definition  of  falsehood,  although  resting  on  high 
authority,  is  too  comprehensive.  It  is  not  every  enunciatio  falsi 
which  is  a  falsehood.  This  enunciation  may  be  made  through 
ignorance  or  mistake,  and  therefore  be  perfectly  innocent.  It 
may  even  be  deliberate  and  intentional.  This  we  see  in  the  case 
of  fables  and  parables,  and  in  works  of  fiction.  No  one  regards 
the  Iliad  or  the  Paradise  Lost  as  a  repertorium  of  falsehoods.  It 
is  not  necessar}^  to  assume  that  the  parables  of  our  Lord,  are  ver- 
itable histories.  They  were  not  designed  to  give  a  narrative  of 
actual  occurrences.  Intention  to  deceive,  therefore,  is  an  element 
in  the  idea  of  falsehood.  But  even  this  is  not  always  culpable. 
When  Pharaoh  commanded  the  Hebrew  midwives  to  slay  the 
male  children  of  their  countrywomen,  they  disobeyed  him.  And 
when  called  to  account  for  their  disobedience,  they  said,  "  The 
Hebrew  women  are  not  as  the  Egyptian  women ;  for  they  are 
lively,  and  are  delivered  ere  the  midwives  come  in  unto  them. 
Therefore  God  dealt  well  with  the  midwives  :  and  the  people 
multiplied,  and  waxed  very  mighty."  (Ex.  i.  19,  20.)  In  1  Sam- 
uel xvi.  1,  2,  we  read  that  God  said  to  Samuel,  "  I  will  send  thee 
to  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite  :  for  I  have  provided  me  a  king  among 
his  sons.  And  Samuel  said,  How  can  I  go  ?  if  Saul  hear  it,  he  will 
kill  me.  And  the  Lord  said.  Take  an  heifer  with  thee,  and  say, 
I  am  come  to  sacrifice  to  the  Lord."  Here,  it  is  said,  is  a  case 
of  intentional  deception  actually  commanded.  Saul  was  to  be  de- 
ceived as  to  the  object  of  Samuel's  journey  to  Bethlehem.  StiU 
more  marked  is  the  conduct  of  Elisha  as  recorded  in  2  Kings  vi. 
14-20.  The  king  of  Syria  sent  soldiers  to  seize  the  prophet  at 
Dothan.  "  And  when  they  came  do^vn  to  him,  Elisha  prayed 
unto  the  Lord,  and  said,  Smite  this  people  I  pray  thee  with 
blindness.  And  He  smote  them  with  blindness,  according  to  the 
word  of  Elisha.  And  Elisha  said  unto  them.  This  is  not  the  way 
neither  is  this  the  city  :  follow  me  and  I  will  bring  you  to  the  man 
whom  ye  seek.  But  he  led  tliom  to  Samaria.  And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  they  were  come  into  Samaria,  that  Elisha  said,  Lord, 
open  the  eyes  of  these  men,  that  they  may  see.  And  the  LoRD 
opened  their  eyes,  and  they  saw ;  and  behold,  they  were  in  the 
midst  of  Samaria ;  "  that  is,  in  the  hands  of  their  enemies.  The 
prophet,  however,  would  not  allow  them  to  be  injured ;  but  com- 


§  13.]  THE  NINTH   COJNIMANDMENT.  441 

manded  that  they  should  be  fed  and  sent  back  to  their  master. 
Examples  of  this  kind  of  deception  are  numerous  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Some  of  them  are  simply  recorded  facts,  without 
anything  to  indicate  how  they  were  regarded  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
but  others,  as  in  the  cases  above  cited,  received  either  directly  or 
by  implication  the  divine  sanction.  Of  our  blessed  Lord  himself 
it  is  said  in  Luke  xxiv.  28,  "  He  made  as  though  (Trpoo-eTrotetro,  he 
made  a  show  of)  he  would  have  gone  further."  He  so  acted  as 
to  make  the  impression  on  the  two  disciples  that  it  was  his  pur- 
pose to  continue  his  journey.  (Comp.  Mark  vi.  48.)  Many  the- 
ologians do  not  admit  that  the  fact  recorded  in  Luke  xxiv.  28, 
involved  any  intentional  deception  ;  because  the  "  simulatio  non 
fuerit  in  verbis  veritati  contradicentibus,  sed  in  gestibus  veritati 
consentientibus.  Christus  ....  agebat,  ut  qui  iturus  esset 
longius,  et  revera  iturus  fuerat,  nisi  rogatus  fuisset  a  discipulis, 

alia  fortasse  ratione  se  iis  manifesturus Alii  dicunt,  simu- 

lationem  fuisse  teiitatoriam,  ^que  ac  illam,  qu?e  in  Abraham! 
historia  a  scriptore  sacro  commemoratur  Gen.  xxii.  2.  In  eandem 
sententiam  descendunt  Beausobre  et  L'Enfant,  qui  in  notis  gal- 
licis  ad  Luc.  xxiv.  28,  ita  scribunt :  C'est  un  feinte  innocente  et 
pleine  d'amour,  par  laquelle  Jesus-Christ  veut  eprouver  la  foi  de 
ses  disciples.  Ainsi  en  usent  les  medicins  a  I'egard  des  malades, 
et  les  peres  a  I'egard  de  leurs  enfans."  ^ 

It  is  the  general  sentiment  among  moralists  that  stratagems 
in  war  are  allowable  ;  that  it  is  lawful  not  only  to  conceal  intended 
movements  from  an  enemy,  but  also  to  mislead  him  as  to  your 
intentions.  A  great  part  of  the  skill  of  a  military  commander  is 
evinced  in  detecting  the  intentions  of  his  adversary,  and  in  con- 
cealing his  own.  Few  men  would  be  so  scrupulous  as  to  refuse  to 
keep  a  light  in  a  room,  when  robbery  was  apprehended,  with  the 
purpose  of  producing  the  impression  that  the  members  of  the 
household  were  on  the  alert. 

On  these  grounds  it  is  generally  admitted  that  in  criminal  false- 
hoods there  must  be  not  only  the  enunciation  or  signification  of 
what  is  false,  and  an  intention  to  deceive,  but  also  a  violation  of 
some  obligation.  If  there  may  be  any  combination  of  circum- 
stances under  Avhich  a  man  is  not  bound  to  speak  the  truth,  those 
to  whom  the  declaration  or  signification  is  made  have  no  right  to 
expect  him  to  do  so.  A  general  is  under  no  obligation  to  reveal 
his  intended  movements  to  his  adversary  ;  and  his  adversary  has 
no  right  to  suppose  that  his  apparent  intention  is  his  real  purpose, 
1  Gerhard,  Loci  Theologid,  xiii.  177;  edit.  Tubingen,  1766,  vol.  v.  p.  346,  Cotta's  note. 


442  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Elislia  was  under  no  obligation  to  aid  tlie  Syrians  in  securing  his 
person  and  taking  his  life ;  and  they  had  no  right  to  assume  that 
he  would  thus  assist  them.  And,  therefore,  he  did  no  wrong  in 
misleading  them.  There  will  always  be  cases  in  which  the  rule 
of  duty  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  It  is  often  said  that  the  rule  above 
stated  applies  when  a  robber  demands  your  purse.  It  is  said  to 
be  right  to  deny  that  you  have  anything  of  value  about  you.  You 
are  not  bound  to  aid  him  in  committing  a  crime  ;  and  he  has  no 
right  to  assume  that  you  will  facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  his 
object.  This  is  not  so  clear.  The  obligation  to  speak  the  truth 
is  a  very  solemn  one ;  and  when  the  choice  is  left  a  man  to  tell  a 
lie  or  lose  his  money,  he  had  better  let  his  money  go.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  a  mother  sees  a  murderer  in  pursuit  of  her  child, 
she  has  a  perfect  right  to  mislead  him  by  any  means  in  her  power ; 
because  the  general  obligation  to  speak  the  truth  is  merged  or 
lost,  for  the  time  being,  in  the  liigher  obligation.  This  principle 
is  not  invalidated  by  its  possible  or  actual  abuse.  It  has  been 
greatly  abused.  Jesuits  taught  that  the  obligations  to  promote  the 
good  of  the  Church  absorbed  or  superseded  every  other  obliga 
tion.  And,  therefore,  in  their  system  not  only  falsehood  and 
mental  reservation,  but  perjury,  robbery,  and  assassination  be- 
came lawful  if  committed  with  the  design  of  promoting  the  in- 
terests of  the  Church.  Notwithstanding  this  liability  to  abuse, 
the  principle  that  a  higher  obligation  absolves  from  a  lower  stands 
firm.  It  is  a  dictate  even  of  the  natural  conscience.  It  is  evi- 
dently right  to  inflict  pain  in  order  to  save  life.  It  is  right  to  sub- 
ject travellers  to  quarantine,  although  it  may  grievously  interfere 
with  their  wishes  or  interests,  to  save  a  city  from  pestilence.  The 
principle  itself  is  clearly  inculcated  by  our  Lord  when  He  said,  "  I 
will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice  ; "  and  when  He  taught  that  it 
was  right  to  violate  the  Sabbath  in  order  to  save  the  hfe  of  an  ox, 
or  even  to  prevent  its  suffering.  The  Jesuits  erred  in  assuming 
that  the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  the  Church  {in  their  sense 
especially  of  the  word  Church)  was  a  higher  duty  than  obedience 
to  the  moral  law.  They  erred  also  in  assuming  that  the  interests 
of  the  Church  could  be  promoted  by  the  commission  of  crime ; 
and  their  principle  was  in  direct  violation  of  the  Scriptural  rule 
that  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come. 

The  question  now  under  consideration  is  not  whether  it  is  ever 
right  to  do  wrong,  which  is  a  solecism  ;  nor  is  the  question  whether 
it  is  ever  right  to  lie  ;  but  rather  what  constitutes  a  lie.  It  is  not 
simply  an  '■'■  enunciatio  falsi"  nor,  as  it  is  commonly  defined  b] 


§13.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  443 

the  moralists  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  a  "  locutio  contra  mentem 
loquentis  ;  "  ^  but  there  must  be  an  intention  to  deceive  when  we 
are  expected  and  bound  to  speak  the  truth.  That  is,  there  are 
circumstances  in  which  a  man  is  not  bound  to  speak  the  truth, 
and  therefore  there  are  cases  in  which  speaking  or  intimating  what 
is  not  true  is  not  a  he.  The  Roman  morahsts  just  referred  to, 
answer  the  question,  Whether  it  is  ever  lawful  to  lie  ?  in  the  nega- 
tive. Dens,  for  example  goes  so  far  as  to  say  :  "  Non  licet  mentiri 
(i.  g.,  to  utter  what  is  not  true,  as  he  defines  the  word  'menda- 
cium  ')  ad  avertendum  mortem  aut  interitum  Reipublicge,  vel  quge- 
cunque  alia  mala :  in  hujusmodi  perplexitatibus  debent  homines 
confugere  ad  auxilium  Dei,  angeli  custodis,"  etc.^  This  is  a 
sound  rule,  provided  the  obhgation  to  speak  the  truth  exists.  It 
is  far  better  that  a  man  should  die  or  permit  a  murder  to  be 
committed,  than  that  he  should  sin  against  God.  Nothing  could 
tempt  the  Christian  martyrs  to  save  their  own  lives  or  the  lives 
of  their  brethren  by  denying  Christ,  or  by  professing  to  beheve 
in  false  gods ;  in  these  cases  the  obligation  to  speak  the  truth  was 
in  full  force.  But  in  the  case  of  a  commanding  general  in  time 
of  war,  the  obligation  does  not  exist  to  intimate  his  true  intentions 
to  his  adversary.  Intentional  deception  in  his  case  is  not  morally 
a  falsehood.  Although  the  Romanist  theologians  lay  down  the 
rule  that  a  mendacium  is  never  lawful,  and  although  they  define 
mendacium  as  stated  above,  yet  they  teach  that  if  a  confessor  is 
asked  whether  he  knows  a  fact  confided  to  him  in  the  confessional, 
he  is  at  liberty  to  answer.  No  ;  meaning  that  he  does  not  know  it 
scientia  communicabili.  That  is,  he  is  authorized,  according  to 
their  own  definition  of  the  word,  to  tell  a  dowiuright  falsehood. 
He  may  be  right  to  reply  to  the  question.  Whether  he  knows  a 
fact  communicated  to  him  in  his  character  of  confessor,  by  saying, 
"  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  answer  ;  "  but  it  is  hard  to  see  how  he 
could  be  justified  in  a  direct  falsehood.'^ 

In  order  to  include  the  third  element  entering  into  the  nature 
of  criminal  falsehood,  Paley  defines  a  lie  to  be  a  violation  of  a 
promise.    Every  violation  of  a  promise  is  not  a  lie,  for  it  may  not 

^  This  definition  is  given  by  Dens,  Theologia,  Be  Mendacio,  N.  242,  edit.  Dublin,  1832. 
vol.  iv.  p.  306. 

2  Ibid.  N.  243,  p.  308. 

**  "  Confessarius  interrogatus  a  tyranno  an  Titius  confessus  sit  homicidium,  respondere 
potest  et  debet:  '  nescio; '  quia  confessarius  id  nescit  scientia  communicabili.  Imo,  etiamsi 
instaret  tyrannus,  et  diceret,  '  An  hoc  nescis  scientia  sacramentali  ?  '  Respondere  adhut 
posset:  'nescio.'  Ratio  est,  quia  tyrannus  bene  scit  se  de  hoc  jus  interrogandi  non  habere, 
nee  confessarius  ut  homo  scit  se  scire,  sed  uti  vicarius  Dei  et  scientia  incommunicabili.' 
John  Peter  Gury,  Compendium  Theologice  Moralis,  new  edit.     Tornaci    rol.  i.  p.  201. 


444  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

include  the  other  elements  of  a  falsehood  ;  but  every  lie  is  a  viola- 
tion of  a  promise.  It  arises  out  of  the  very  nature  of  human 
society,  and  from  the  relation  in  which  men  of  necessity  stand  to 
each  other,  that  every  man  is  expected  to  speak  the  truth,  and  is 
under  a  tacit  but  binding  promise  not  to  deceive  his  neighbours 
by  word  or  act.  If  in  any  case  he  is  guilty  of  intentional  decep- 
tion, he  must  be  able  to  show  that  in  that  particular  case  the 
obligation  does  not  exist ;  that  is,  that  the  party  deceived  has  no 
right  to  expect  the  truth,  and  that  no  virtual  promise  is  violated 
in  deceiving  him.  This  is  certainly  the  fact  in  military  ma- 
noeuvres, and  in  some  other  cases  of  rare  occurrence. 

This,  however,  is  not  always  admitted.  Augustine,  for  exam- 
ple, makes  every  intentional  deception,  no  matter  what  the  ob- 
ject or  what  the  circumstances,  to  be  sinful.  "  Ille  mentitur," 
he  says,  "  qui  aliud  habet  in  animo,  et  aliud  verbis  vel  quibusli- 
bet  significationibus  enuntiat."  ^  Again  he  says,^  "  Nemo  autem 
dubitat  mentiri  eum  qui  volens  falsum  enuntiat  causa  fallendi : 
quapropter  enuntiationem  falsam  cum  voluntate  ad  fallendum 
prolatam,  manifestum  est  esse  mendacium."  He  reviews  the 
cases  recorded  in  the  Bible  which  seem  to  teach  the  opposite  doc- 
trine. This  would  be  the  simplest  ground  for  the  morahst  to 
take.  But,  as  sho"\vn  above,  and  as  generally  admitted,  there  are 
cases  of  intentional  deception  wliich  are  not  criminal. 

Kinds  of  Falsehood. 

Augustine  divides  falsehood  into  no  less  than  eight  classes. 
But  these  differ  for  the  most  part  simply  as  to  their  subject  mat- 
ter, or  their  effects.  The  division  as  given  by  Thomas  Aquinas 
and  very  generally  adopted  since,^  is  into  three  classes  :  the  per- 
nicious, the  benevolent,  and  the  jocose.  Under  the  first  head 
come  all  falsehoods  which  are  instigated  by  any  evil  motive  and 
are  designed  to  promote  some  evil  end.  It  includes  not  only  the 
direct  enunciation  of  what  is  false,  but  also  all  quibbling  or  pre- 
varication. 

1  De  Mendacio,  3;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol.  vi.  p.  712,  a. 

2  Ihid.  5,  (iv.),  p.  715,  a. 

3  Aquinas,  Sumvia,  ii.  ii.  110,  2;  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  203,  a,  of  third  set.  "Potest 
dividi  mendacium,  in  quantum  habet  rationem  culpa,  secundum  ea  qua>  aggravant,  vel 
diminuunt  culpam  mendacii  ex  parte  finis  intenti.  Aggravat  autem  culpani  mendacii,  si 
aliquis  per  mendacium  intcndat  altcrius  nocumentum:  quod  vocatur  mendaciimi  pernicio- 
sum.  Diminuitur  autem  culpa  mendacii,  si  ordinetur  ad  aliquod  bonum,  vel  delectabile,  et 
sic  est  mendacium  jocosum:  vel  utile,  et  sic  est  mendacium  officiosuni,  quo  intenditur 
juvamentum  alterius,  vel  remotio  nocumenti.  Et  secundum  hoc  dividitur  mendacium  in  tria 
prwdicta  "  The  first,  according  to  Romanists,  is  a  mortal  sin,  the  two  latter  are  regarded 
as  venial 


§13.]  THE  NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  445 

Mental  Reservation. 

This  class  includes  also  all  cases  of  mental  reservation.  It 
should  be  said  in  justice  to  the  teachers  of  Moral  Theology  in  the 
Romish  Church,  that,  although  the  Jesuits  made  themselves  so 
obnoxious  by  asserting  the  propriety  of  mental  reservation,  they 
at  least  in  general  terms  condemn  it.  "  Restrictio  mentalis," 
says  Gury,  "  est  actus  mentis  verba  alicujus  propositionis  ad  alium 
sensum  quam  naturalem  et  obvium  detorquentis  vel  restringentis." 
This  he  says  is  unlawful,  because  it  is  "  simpliciter  mendacium." 
It  is  true  these  theologians  make  serious  modifications  of  this  rule. 
It  is  only  of  reservation  "  proprie  mentalis,"  that  is,  when  the 
true  meaning  of  the  speaker  cannot  be  detected,  that  this  condem- 
nation is  pronounced.  If  it  be  possible,  from  the  circmnstances  or 
the  mode  of  expression,  to  know  what  he  means,  the  rule  does  not 
always  apply.  There  are  cases  in  which  it  is  allowable  to  permit 
a  man  to  deceive  himseK.  Under  this  head  is  brought  m  the  case 
above  referred  to.  It  is  said  that  a  confessor  may  properly  say 
that  he  does  not  know  a  thing,  when  he  means  that  he  does  not 
know  it  as  a  man,  or  mtli  a  knowledge  that  is  communicable.  So 
it  is  said  that  if  a  man  be  asked  by  one  who  has  no  right  to  inter- 
rogate him,  whether  he  has  committed  a  crime,  he  may  say.  No  ; 
meanino^  none  that  he  was  bound  to  confess.  So  also  it  is  taught 
that  public  persons,  ambassadors,  magistrates,  advocates,  etc., 
may  use  mental  reservation  in  its  Avider  sense.  In  like  manner  a 
servant  may  say  his  master  is  not  at  home,  whom  he  knows  to  be 
in  the  house,  because  such  denial  so  often  means  that  the  person 
inquired  for  does  not  wish  to  be  seen.^  This  opens  a  very  wide 
door  of  which  not  only  Jesuits,  but  men  professing  to  be  Protes- 
tants and  Christians  freely  avail  themselves.  To  an  unsophis- 
tical  mind  all  the  instances  above  specified  are  cases  of  unmiti- 
gated falsehood. 

The  extent  to  which  the  Jesuits  carried  the  principle  of  mental 
reservation  is  a  matter  of  notoriety.  The  three  rules  by  which 
they  perverted  the  whole  system  of  morals,  and  which  threatened 
to  overturn  the  very  foundations  of  society,  and  which  led  at  one 
time  to  the  suppression  of  the  order,  were,  — 

1.  The  doctrine  that  the  character  of  an  act  depended  solely  on 
the  intention.  If  the  intention  be  good,  the  act  is  good  ;  whether 
it  be  falsehood,  perjury,  murder,  or  any  other  conceivable  crime. 
Pascal  quotes  the  Jesuit  morahst  Escobar  as  laying  down  the  gen- 

1  Gurj',  ut  supra,  vol.  i.  pp.  200,  201. 


446  PART  m.   Ch.  xtx.  — the  law. 

oral  principle,  "  that  promises  are  not  binding  unless  there  was 
an  intention  of  keeping  them,  at  the  time  they  were  made."  * 
On  the  same  principle,  that  the  intention  determines  the  character 
of  the  act,  the  murder  of  Henry  III.  in  1589 ;  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange  in  1584  ;  of  Henry  IV.  of  France  in  1610 ;  and  especially 
the  massacres  on  the  feast  of  St.  Bartholomew,  were  all  justified. 
This  principle  is  not  confined  to  the  Jesuits.  When  in  1819  young 
Sand  murdered  Kotzebue,  the  poet,  from  political  motives,  he  not 
only  justified  the  act  to  the  last,  but  perhaps  the  general  senti- 
ment among  his  younger  countrymen  was  that  of  approbation. 
Even  De  Wette,  the  distinguished  theologian  and  commentator, 
in  a  letter  of  consolation  to  the  mother  of  Sand,  spoke  of  the  as- 
sassination as  "  a  favourable  sign  of  the  times."  ^  It  was  regarded 
very  much  as  the  killing  of  Marat  by  Charlotte  Corday  is  re- 
garded by  the  public  to  this  day.  When  the  doctrine  comes  to  be 
formalized  as  a  moral  principle  that  the  intention  determines  the 
character  of  the  act,  so  that  murder  committed  for  the  good  of 
the  Church  or  the  State  is  commendable,  then  the  law  of  God  is 
set  at  nouglit  and  the  bonds  of  society  are  unloosed. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  probability.  If  it  was  probable  that  an  act 
was  right  there  was  no  sin  in  committing  it,  although  in  the  con- 
viction of  the  agent  the  act  was  wrong ;  and  an  act  was  probably 
right,  if  among  the  moralists  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  the  subject. 

3.  The  above-mentioned  doctrine  of  mental  reservation.  It 
was  taught  that  a  man  might  innocently  swear  he  did  not  do  a 
certain  thing,  provided  he  said  to  himself,  not  audibly  to  others, 
"  I  mean  I  did  not  do  it  ten  years  ago."  All  these  different 
kinds  of  lying,  though  referred  to  different  heads  by  the  Jesuit 
teachers,  belong  properly  to  the  class  of  pernicious  falsehoods, 
such  as  the  law  of  God  utterly  condemns. 

The  second  class,  called  "  mendacia  officiosa,"  includes  all 
falsehoods  uttered  for  a  good  object.  Such  as  those  told  the  sick 
by  their  attendants,  to  comfort  or  encourage  them  ;  those  told  by 

1  Blaise  Pascal,  Lettres  ccrites  a  un  Provincial,  edit.  Paris,  1820,  p.  180;  Escobar,  III. 
ex.  iii.  n.  48. 

2  De  Wette  did  not  approve  of  the  assassination  of  Kotzebue  in  a  moral  point  of  view. 
His  language  was:  "  So  wie  die  That  geschehen  ist,  mit  diesem  Glaubcn,  niit  diescr  Zuver- 
sicht,  ist  sie  cin  schemes  Zcichen  der  Zeit.  —  Die  That  ist  —  allgcmcin  bctrachtet  —  unsitt- 
lich  und  der  sittlichcn  Gesetzgebung  zuwiderlaufend.  Das  BiJse  soil  nicht  durch  das  Biise 
iiberwunden  wcrden,  soudern  allein  durch  das  Gute.  Durch  Unrccht,  List  und  Gewalt 
kann  kein  Rechtgestiftet  wcrden,  und  der  gute  Zweck  heiligt  nicht  das  ungerechte  Mitlel." 
Quoted  in  the  Conversations-Lexicon,  7th  edit.  Leipzig,  1827,  art.  Wette  (de).  The  let. 
ter,  although  thus  guarded,  led  to  the  loss  of  his  professorship  in  Berlin  and  his  virtrnl  ban- 
'shment  from  the  city. 


1 


§  13.]  THE  NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  447 

detectives  for  the  discovery  of  crimes ;  or  those  which  are  de- 
signed to  prevent  evil  or  secure  good  for  ourselves  or  others. 
All  such  falsehoods  are  pronounced  by  Romanists  to  be  venial 
sins,  mere  peccadilloes.^  The  example  given  by  Dens,  in  the 
place  referred  to,  of  this  class  of  sins,  is  the  case  of  a  man  having 
money,  denying  that  he  has  it  to  avoid  being  robbed.  This  is 
very  different  from  the  doctrine  of  Augustine,  who  teaches  that  it 
is  unlawful  to  lie  to  save  life,  or  even  to  save  a  soul.^  Augus- 
tine's position  is  consistent  with  what  was  said  above,  that  there 
are  occasions  on  which  a  higher  obligation  absolves  from  a  lower, 
as  our  Lord  himself  teaches.  But  that  principle  applies  to  the 
case  of  falsehood  only  when  the  enunciation  of  what  is  untrue 
ceases  to  be  falsehood  in  the  criminal  sense  of  the  word.  It  has 
been  seen  that  three  elements  enter  into  the  nature  of  false- 
hood properly  so  called,  (1.)  The  enunciation  of  what  is  false. 
(2.)  The  intention  to  deceive.  (3.)  The  violation  of  a  promise ; 
that  is,  the  violation  of  the  obligation  to  speak  the  truth,  the 
obligation  which  rests  upon  every  man  to  keep  faith  with  his 
neighbour.  In  military  manoeuvres,  as  above  remarked,  there  is 
no  expectation,  and  no  right  for  expectation,  that  a  general  will 
reveal  his  true  intentions  to  his  adversarj^,  and  therefore  in  that 
case  deception  is  not  falsehood,  because  there  is  no  violation  of 
an  obligation.  But  when  a  confessor  was  called  upon  by  a 
heathen  magistrate  to  say  whether  he  was  a  Christian,  he  was 
expected,  and  bound  to  speak  the  truth,  although  he  knew  the 
consequence  would  be  a  cruel  death.  So  when  a  man  is  asked  if 
he  has  money  about  him,  he  is  expected  to  speak  the  truth,  and 
has  no  right  to  lie  any  more  than  a  Christian  had  a  right  to  lie 
to  save  his  life.  The  doctrine  that  "  mendacia  officiosa  "  are  only 
venial  sins,  rests  on  the  principle  that  the  intention  determines 
the  character  of  the  act.  The  simple  Scriptural  rule  is,  that  he 
who  does  "  evil  that  good  may  come,"  his  "  damnation  is  just." 

It  is  a  fact  of  experience,  that,  so  far  as  our  inner  life  at  least 
is  concerned,  exorbitant  attention  to  how  to  do  a  thing  destroys 
the  ability  to  do  it.  An  adept  in  logic  may  be  a  very  poor  rea- 
soner ;  and  a  man  who  spends  his  life  in  studying  the  rules  of 
elocution  may  be  a  very  indifferent  orator.     So  a  man  versed  in 

1  Dens,  ut  snpra,  vol.  iv.  N.  242,  p.  307.  "  Meudacium  officiosum  dicitur,  quod  com- 
mittitur  solum  causa  utilitatis  proprise  vel  alienae :  v.  g.  quis  dicit,  se  non  habere  pecunias, 
ne  lis  spolietur  a  militibus."  And  on  the  same  page  he  says,  "  Officiosum  autem  et  joco- 
sum  sunt  ex  genere  suo  peccatum  veniale."  So  also  Gury,  vol.  1.  p.  199.  "Mendacium 
officiosum  peccatum  venale  est,  per  se,  quia  in  eo  gravis  deordinatio  non  apprehenditur." 

2  De  Mendacio,  9,  (vi.);    Works,  ut  supra,  vol.  vi.  p.  719  ff. 


448  PART  III.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

all  the  subtleties  of  casuistry  is  apt  to  lose  the  clear  and  simple 
apprehension  of  right  and  wrong.  Professor  Gury  has  for  the 
motto  of  his  book  on  moral  theology,  the  words  of  St.  Gregory : 
"  Ars  artium  regimen  animarum."  Very  true,  but  it  is  a  bad 
v/ay  to  lead  a  man  to  a  given  point  to  put  him  into  a  labyrinth. 
These  books  of  casuistry  only  serve  to  mystify  the  plainest  sub- 
jects. Indulging  in  such  subtleties  can  hardly  fail  to  lead  to  the 
adoption  of  false  principles.  It  is  very  plain  that  the  man  who 
was  at  once  a  prince  and  a  bishop,  could  not  well  be  drunk  as 
prince  and  sober  as  bishop ;  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  these  books 
teach  that  a  priest  may  lie  as  a  man,  and  yet  speak  truth  as  a 
vicar  of  God.  The  plain  directions  of  the  Word  of  God  and  a 
conscience  enlightened  by  his  Spirit,  are  safer  guides  in  matters 
of  duty  than  all  the  books  on  moral  theology  the  Jesuits  ever 
wrote.  This  is  not  saying  that  morals  are  not  a  proper  subject 
of  study,  or  that  there  is  not  a  call  in  that  field  for  the  exercise 
of  discrimination  and  distinction.  The  objection  is  not  to  the 
study  of  morals,  but  to  inordinate  devotion  to  that  department, 
and  to  the  perplexing  and  perverting  subtleties  of  casuistry. 

"      Pious  Frauds. 

Pious  fraud  was  reduced  by  Romanists  to  a  science  and  an 
art.  It  was  called  economics,  from  ok-oio/xta,  "  dispensatio  rei 
familiaris,"  the  discretionary  use  of  things  in  a  family  according 
to  circumstances.  The  theory  is  founded  on  the  principle  that  if 
the  intention  be  lawful,  the  act  is  lawful.  Any  act,  therefore, 
designed  to  promote  any  "pious"  end  is  justifiable  "in  foro 
conscientiaB."  This  principle  was  introduced  at  an  early  period 
into  the  Christian  Church.  Mosheim  attributes  to  it  a  heathen 
origin.!  jje  gg^yg  ti-^^t  the  Platonists  and  Pythagoreans  taught 
that  it  was  commendable  to  lie  to  promote  a  good  end.  The 
evil,  however,  had  probably  an  independent  origin  wherever  it 
appeared.  It  is  plausible  enough  to  rise  spontaneously  in  any 
mind  not  under  the  control  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God. 

Augustine  had  to  contend  against  this  error  in  his  day.  There 
were  certain  orthodox  Christians  wlio  thought  it  right  falsely  to 
assert  that  they  were  Priscillianists  in  order  to  gain  their  confi- 
dence and  thus  be  able  to  convict  them  of  heresy.  This  brought 
up  the  question  whether  it  was  allowable  to  commit  a  fraud  for  a 
good  end  ;  in  other  words,  whether  the  intention  determined  tha 
character  of  the  act.     Augustine  took  the  negative  of  the  ques- 

1  Ecdedasttcnl  Uistory,  i.  ii.  2.  3.  §  15;  edit.  New  York,  1859,  vol.  i.  p.  130. 


§  18.]  THE  NINTH   COMMi  NDMENT.  449 

tion,  and  argued  that  a  Ke  was  always  a  lie,  and  always  wicked ; 
that  it  was  not  lawful  to  tell  a  falsehood  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever. "  Literest  quidem  plurimum,"  he  says,  "  qua  causa,  quo 
fine,  qua  intentione  quid  fiat :  sed  ea  quae  constat  esse  peccata, 
nuUo  bonae  causae   obtentu,  nullo   quasi   bono  fine,  nulla  velut 

bona  intentione  facienda  sunt Cum  vero  jam  opera  ipsa 

peccata  sunt ;  sicut  furta,  stupra,  blasphemiae,  vel  castera  talia ; 
quis  est  qui  dicat  causis  bonis  esse  facienda,  ut  vel  peccata  non 
sint,  vel  quod  est  absurdius,  justa  peccata  sint  ?  Quis  est  qui 
dicat :  ut  habeamus  quod  demus  pauperibus,  faciamus  furta 
divitibus ;  aut,  testimonia  falsa  vendamus,  maxime  si  non  inde 
innocentes  laeduntur,  sed  nocentes  potius  damnaturis  judicibus 
eruuntm-?"!  He  specially  condemns  all  "pious  frauds,"  i.  e., 
frauds  committed  in  pretended  service  of  rehgion. 

Notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Augustine,  the  doctrme  that 
it  was  right  to  use  fraud  in  efforts  to  promote  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  was  openly  avowed  by  some  of  his  contemporaries  and 
many  of  his  immediate  successors,  and  during  the  Middle  Ages 
was  the  practical  rule  of  the  Romish  Church,  as  it  is  at  the 
present  day.  Among  the  early  advocates  of  this  lax  principle  of 
morals  is  found  the  name  even  of  Jerome.  In  his  epistle  to 
Pammachius,  he  says,  that  in  teaching,  a  man  is  bound  to  be 
honest,  but  in  dealing  with  ai;  adversary,  he  may  do  what  he 
pleases ;  it  is  right  "  nunc  h^ec  nunc  ilia  proponere.  Argumen- 
tari  ut  libet,  aliud  loqui,  aliud  agere,  panem,  ut  dicitur,  osten- 
dere,  lapidem  tenere."  ^  The  principle  that  the  intention  sancti- 
fies the  deed,  is  clearly  asserted  by  John  Cassian,  a  disciple  of 
Chrysostom.  Falsehood,  he  says,  is  like  poison :  taken  moderately 
and  in  illness,  it  may  be  salutary ;  but  if  taken  inopportunely, 
it  is  fatal.  "  Non  enim  Deus  verborum  tantum  actuumque  nos- 
trorum  discussor  et  judex,  sed  etiam  propositi  ac  destinationia 

inspector  est Ille  tamen  intimam  cordis  inspiciens  pieta- 

tem,  non  verborum  sonum,  sed  votum  dijudicat  volmitatis,  quia 
finis,  operis  et  affectus  considerandus  est  perpetrantis."^ 

1  Contra  Mendacium  ad  Comentium,  18;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol. 
vi.  pp.  767,  d,  768,  a,  b. 

2  Epistuln,  xlviii.  [30  sen  50]  13,  seu  Liber  Apologeticus  ad  Pammacliium  ;  Worhs,  edit, 
Migne,  Paris,  18-45,  vol.  i.  p.  502. 

3  CoUaiiones,  xvii.  17;  Macjna  Bibliotheca   Veterum  Pairwrn,  torn.  v.  par.  ii.  Cologae^ 
1618,  p.  189,  f,  g. 

VOL.  III.  29 


450  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

Forgeries. 

The  principle  having  been  once  admitted  that  it  is  right  to 
deceive  in  order  to  accomplish  a  good  object,  there  was  no  limit 
set  in  practice  to  its  application.      Hence,  — 

1.  Even  from  the  earliest  times  genuine  works  of  the  apostoHc 
fathers  were  corrupted  by  interpolations ;  and  works  were  issued 
bearing  the  names  of  authors  who  were  dead  long  before  the 
works  Avere  written.  Besides  the  apocryphal  books  which  are 
now  admitted  to  be  spurious,  the  Letters  of  Ignatius,  a  portion  of 
which  are  generally  received  as  authentic,  were  so  corrupted  as 
to  be  the  source  of  an  extended  and  permanent  evil  influence. 
Of  these  letters  there  are,  as  is  well  known,  tlu-ee  recensions,  the 
larger  containing  fifteen  epistles,  the  shorter,  and  the  Syrian, 
founded  on  a  Syriac  translation.  The  larger  collection  is  given 
up  by  scholars  as  spurious ;  as  to  the  others,  many  who  admit 
their  authenticity,  insist  that  they  are  more  or  less  corrupted  by 
interpolation.^ 

The  so-called  "  Apostolical  Constitutions  "  are  a  collection  of 
rules  or  canons  derived  partly  from  the  New  Testament,  partly 
from  the  decisions  of  early  provincial  councils,  and  partly  from 
tradition ;  all,  however,  imposed  on  the  Church  as  of  apostohcal 
authority.  As  the  number  of  councils  increased  there  was  a 
necessity  for  renewed  collections  of  their  decisions.  •  These  col- 
lections included  "  decretals "  issued  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome ; 
both  classes  being  included  under  the  name  of  "  canons,"  these 
collections  were  gradually  consolidated  into  the  Canon  Law.  It 
was  a  natural  and  easy  method  of  imposing  on  the  Church  to 
insert  spurious  decretals  in  the  collections  from  time  to  time,  and 
to  found  on  these  forgeries  exorbitant  pretensions  to  priestly  dig- 
nity and  power.  The  most  notorious  of  these  impositions  is  what 
is  known  as  the  Decretals  of  Isidore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  the  most 
distinguished  writer  of  the  seventh  century.  He  died  A.  D.  636. 
The  collection  which  went  under  his  name  did  not  make  its 
appearance  until  the  ninth  century.  It  contains  many  genuine 
decretals  and  canons,  but  also  many  that  are  manifest  forgeries-. 
The  author  of  the  collection  and  of  the  spurious  documents  it 

1  A  brief  account  of  this  much  debated  question  is  given  by  Uhlhorn  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encyklopcidie,  art.  "Ignatius." 

Neander  says  of  these  assumed  letters  of  Ignatius,  "Even  the  brieftr  revision,  which  is 
the  one  most  entitled  to  confidence,  has  been  very  much  interpolated A  hierarch- 
ical purpose  is  not  to  be  mistaken."  General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  ana 
Church,  by  Dr.  Augustus  Neander.  Translated  by  .Joseph  Torre}',  Professor  in  th# 
Cniversity  of  Vermont,  2d  edit.  Boston,  18-19,  vol.  i.  p.  GGl. 


§  13.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  451 

contains  is  unknown.  Its  date  is  fixed  by  Gieseler  between  829 
and  845.  These  decretals  "  were  soon  circulated,"  says  that  his- 
torian, "in  various  collections,  appealed  to  without  suspicion  in 
public  transactions,  and  used  by  the  popes,  from  Nicolaus  I.,  im- 
mediately after  he  had  become  acquainted  with  them  (864), 
without  any  opposition  being  made  to  their  authenticity,  and 
continued  in  undiminished  reputation,  till  the  Reformation  led 
to  the  detection  of  the  cheat.  On  these  false  decretals  were 
founded  the  pretensions  of  the  popes  to  universal  sway  in  the 
Church ;  while  the  pretended  '  donatio  Constantini  M.,'  a  fic- 
tion of  an  earher  time,  but  soon  adopted  into  them,  was  the 
first  step  from  which  the  papacy  endeavoured  to  elevate  itself 
even  above  the  state."  ^  The  authenticity  of  these  documents 
was  first  seriously  attacked  by  the  Magdeburgh  Centuriators, 
who  were  answered  by  the  Jesuit  Turrianus.  "  The  question 
was  decided  by  Dav.  Blondelli  Pseudoisidorus  et  Turrianus  vapu- 
lantes,  Genev.  1628.  The  Ultramontanists,  though  they  admit 
the  deception,  deny  the  revolution  of  ecclesiastical  principles 
caused  by  it."  ^  These  decretals  attribute  to  the  pope  absolute 
supremacy  over  the  Church,  over  patriarchs,  bishops,  and  priests. 
To  him  an  appeal  lies  in  all  questions  of  doctrine,  and  his  de- 
cisions are  final.  The  gift  of  Constantine  conferred  on  the  pontiff 
more  than  imperial  dignity  and  power.  It  conveyed  the  sove- 
reignty of  the  city  of  Rome,  of  Italy,  and  of  the  western  prov- 
inces. Among  other  things  it  says,  "  Et  sicut  nostram  terrenam 
imperialem  potentiam,  sic  ejus  (Petri)  sacrosanctam  Romanam 
Ecclesiam  decrevimus  veneranter  honorari,  et  amplius  quam  nos- 
trum imperium  terrenumque  thronum,  sedem  sacratissimam  b. 
Petri  gloriose  exaltari :  tribuentes  ei  potestatem  et  glorise  dig- 
nitatem, atque  vigorem  et  honorificentiam  imperialem.  Unde  ut 
pontificalis  apex  non  vilescat,  sed  magis  quam  imperii  dignitas, 
gloria  et  potentia  decoretur,  ecce  tam  palatium  nostrum,  ut 
praadictum  est,  quam  Romanam  urbem,  et  omnes  Italitie,  seu 
occidentalium  regionum  pro\nncias,  loca  et  civitates  praefato 
beatissimo  Pontifici  nostro  Sylvestro,  universali  papas,  contradi- 
mus  atque  relinquimus :  et  ab  eo  et  a  successoribus  ejus  per 
banc  divalem  nostram,  et  pragmaticum  constitutum  decernimus 
disponenda,  atque  juri  sanctae  Romanae  Ecclesige  concedimus  per- 
mansura."^ 

1  Gieseler,  Ecclesiastical  History,  Per.  ni.  ii.    1.  1.  §  20;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1848,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  331-336. 

2  Ibid.  p.  335,  foot-notes. 

8  Quoted  by  Gieseler,  2U  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  337,  from  the  Decreta  Gratiani. 


452  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

False  Miracles. 

The  second  great  class  of  pious  frauds  by  whicli  tlie  Churcli  of 
Rome  has  for  ages  endeavoured  to  sustain  its  errors  and  confirm 
its  power,  is  that  of  pretended  miracles.  On  this  subject  it  may 
be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  there  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  inconsistent 
with  the  occurrence  of  miracles  in  the  post-apostolic  age  of  the 
Church.  The  Apostles  were  indeed  chosen  to  be  the  witnesses 
of  Christ,  to  bear  testimony  to  the  facts  of  his  history  and  to  the 
doctrines  which  He  taught.  And  among  the  signs  of  an  Apos- 
tle, or  necessary  credentials  of  his  commission,  was  the  power 
to  work  miracles.  (Rom.  xv.  18,  19 ;  2  Cor.  xii.  12.)  When 
the  Apostles  had  finished  their  work,  the  necessity  of  miracles,  so 
far  as  the  great  end  they  were  intended  to  accomplish  was  con- 
cerned, ceased.  This,  however,  does  not  preclude  the  possibility 
of  their  occurrence,  on  suitable  occasions,  in  after  ages.  It  is  a 
mere  question  of  fact  to  be  decided  on  historical  evidence.  In 
some  few  cases  the  nature  of  the  event,  its  consequences,  and  the 
testimony  in  its  support,  have  constrained  many  Protestants  to 
admit  the  probability,  if  not  the  certainty  of  these  miraculous 
interventions.^  Among  the  controversial  writings  which  the  great 
questions  in  debate  in  the  late  Vatican  Council  have  called  forth, 
there  are  two  of  special  interest  which  have  already  been  trans- 
lated and  circulated  in  this  country.  The  one  is  entitled  "  The 
Pope  and  The  Council,"  ^  a  series  of  papers  ^vritten  by  German 
Catholic  scholars  of  distinction.  It  is  a  historical  argument 
against  Ultramontanism.  Among  other  things  it  demonstrates 
that  the  claims  of  the  Ultramontanists  have  been  sustained  by  a 
regular  system  of  forgeries  in  all  ages  of  the  Church.^ 

The  other  work  is  by  the  late  Abbe  Gratry,^  one  of  the  most 

1  Grotius  in  his  annotations  on  Mark  xvi.  17,  says:  "Cum  vero  multo  etiam  seriora 
secula  plena  sint  testimoniis  ejus  rei,  nescio  qua  ratione  moti  quidam  id  donum  ad  prima 
tantum  tempera  restringant;  quibus  ut  uberiorem  fuisse  miraculorum  copiam,  ad  jacienda 
tanti  ffidificii  fundamenta  contra  vim  mundi,  facile  concede,  ita  cum  illis  expirasse  banc 
Christi  promissionem  cur  credamus  non  video.  Quare  si  quis  nunc  etiam  gentibus  Christ! 
ignaris  (illis  enim  proprie  miraculainserviunt  1  Cor.  xiv.  22)/ Christum,  ita  ut  ipse  annun- 
tiari  voluit,  annuntiet,  promissionis  vim  duraturam  arbitror.  Sunt  enim  aixeTa)xi\r]Ta  toG 
©eou  6iopa  (sine  poenitcntia  dona  Dei).  Sed  nos  cujus  rei  culpa  est  in  nostra  ignavia  aut 
indifferentia  id  solemus  in  Deuni  rejicere."  Works,  edit.  London,  1G79,  tome  ii.  vol.  i.  p. 
328,  b,  18-32. 

2  The  Pope  and  the  Council,  by  Janus.  Authorized  Translation  from  the  German. 
Boston,  1870. 

3  See  especially  chap.  iii.  §  7,  pp.  76-122. 

*  Papal  Infallibility  Untenable.  Three  Letters  by  A.  Gratry,  Priest  of  the  Oratory,  an  J 
member  of  the  French  Academy.     Hartford,  1870. 


§  13.]  THE  NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  463 

distinguished  Romish  ecclesiastics  of  France,  whose  death  has 
just  been  announced.  In  these  masterly  letters  the  writer  es- 
tablishes two  points,  as  he  says  truly  beyond  the  possibility  of 
rational  denial.  The  first  is,  that  the  popes  have  erred  when 
speaking  "ex  cathedra,"  and  therefore  are  not  infallible;  and 
the  second,  that  the  claims  of  Papal  infallibility  have  been  sus- 
tained by  the  most  bare-faced  and  persistent  forgeries  and  frauds. 
Both  of  these  points  are  proved  specially  in  the  case  of  Pope 
Honorius.  Yet,  sad  to  say,  this  eminent  man,  not  long  before 
his  death,  submitted  to  the  decree  of  the  Vatican  Council  by 
which  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  was  made  an  article  of  faith. 
He  said  he  "  erased  "  all  he  had  written  against  that  doctrine.^ 

2.  During  the  first  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apos- 
tles we  hear  little  or  nothing  of  the  working  of  miracles  by 
the  early  Christians.  On  this  point  Bishop  Douglass  says,  "  If 
we  except  the  testimonies  of  Papias  and  Irenaeus,  who  speak  of 
raisino-  the  dead,  ....  I  can  find  no  instances  of  miracles  men- 
tioned by  the  fathers  before  the  fourth  century,  as  what  were 
performed  by  Christians  in  their  times,  but  the  cures  of  diseases, 
particularly  the  cures  of  demoniacs,  by  exorcising  them ;  which 
last,  indeed,  seems  to  be  their  favourite  standing  miracle,  and  the 
only  one  which  I  find  (after  having  turned  over  their  writings 
carefully  and  with  a  view  to  this  point) :  they  challenged  their 
adversaries  to  come  and  see  them  perform."  ^  The  fathers  of 
the  fourth  century  freely  speak  of  the  age  of  miracles  as  past ; 
that  such  interpositions,  being  no  longer  necessary,  were  no  longer 
to  be  expected.  Thus  Chrysostom  says:  "  Ne  itaque  ex  eo,  quod 
nunc  signa  non  fiunt,  argmnentum  ducas  tunc  etiam  non  fuisse. 
Etenim  tunc  utiliter  fiebant,  et  nunc  utiliter  non  fivmt."  ^  And 
Augustine  says :  "  Cur,  inquiimt,  nunc  ilia  miracula,  quae  prse- 
dicatis  facta  esse,  non  fiunt  ?  Possem  quidem  dicere,  necessaria 
fuisse  priusquam  crederet  mundus,  ad  hoc  ut  crederet  mundus."* 

1  It  is  perfectly  intelligible  that  a  man  who  admits  the  infallibility  of  general  councils, 
may  be  able  to  subject  his  strongest  personal  convictions  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church. 
But  no  less  than  three  oecumenical  councils  and  twenty  Popes  had  pronounced  Honorius 
a  heretic.  How  could  the  council  of  the  Vatican  reverse  those  decisions?  Besides,  Gratry 
and  his  Galilean  and  German  coadjutors  denied  that  the  late  council  was  either  oecumenical 
or  free.  Father  Hyacinth  wrote  to  Gratry  on  his  recantation,  and  said  to  him,  "  You  speak 
of  erasing  what  you  have  written,  but  how  can  you  erase  the  facts  which  you  have  demon- 
strated, or  the  convictions  you  have  produced  in  the  minds  of  the  faithful?  " 

2  Criterion,  or,  the  Rule's  by  icliich  the  True  Miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  are 
distinguished  from  the  Spurious  Miracles  of  Pagans  and  Papists.  4th  edit.  Oxford,  1832, 
pp.  228-2.32.     The  author  was  Dean  of   Winder.  Uifhop  of   ('arli>le,  and  afterwards  of 

Salisburv. 

3  In  Epistolam  i.  ad  Corinthios,  nomilia,  vi.  2;    Worlcs,  edit.  Montfaucon,  Pans,  1337, 

vol.  X.  p.  53,  a. 

4  De  Civitaie  Dei,  xxii.  ^nii.  1 ;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  vii.  p.  1057,  d. 


454  PART  m.   Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

However  these  declarations  may  be  reconciled  with  the  fact  that 
these  fathers,  themselves,  give  accounts  of  what  passed  for  mir- 
acles in  their  day,  they  at  least  show  that  in  their  view  there 
was  such  a  difference  between  the  Scriptural  and  ecclesiastical 
miracles  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  same  category.  Al- 
though these  miracles  were  unfrequent  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
Church,  yet  they  rapidly  increased  in  number  until  they  became 
matters  of  every  day's  occurrence. 

3.  They  admit  of  being  classified  on  different  principles.  As 
to  their  nature,  some  are  grave  and  important ;  others  are  tri- 
fling, childish,  and  even  babyish  ;  others  are  indecorous ;  and  others 
are  irreverent  and  even  blasphemous.  Professor  Newman,  one  of 
the  richest  prizes  gained  by  the  Romanists  from  the  Church  of 
England  in  this  generation,  is  candid  enough  to  admit  the  con- 
trast between  the  Scriptural  and  what  he  calls  ecclesiastical  mir- 
acles. Of  the  former,  he  says,^  "  The  miracles  of  Scripture  are, 
as  a  whole,  grave,  simple,  and  majestic :  those  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory often  partake  of  what  may  not  unfitly  be  called  a  romantic 
character,  and  of  that  wildness  and  inequality  which  enters  into 
the  notion  of  romance."  He  says,'-^  "  It  is  obvious  to  apply  what 
has  been  said  to  the  case  of  the  miracles  of  the  Church,  as  com- 
pared with  those  in  Scripture.  Scripture  is  to  us  a  garden  of 
Eden,  and  its  creations  are  beautiful  as  well  as  '  very  good,'  but 
when  we  pass  from  the  Apostolic  to  the  following  ages,  it  is  as  if 
we  left  the  choicest  valleys  of  the  earth,  the  quietest  and  most  har- 
monious scenery,  and  the  most  cultivated  soil,  for  the  luxuriant 
wildernesses  of  Africa  or  Asia,  the  natural  home  or  kingdom  of 

1  Tioo  Essays  on  Scripture  Miracles  and  on  Ecclesiastical.  By  John  Henrj'  Newman, 
formerly  Fellow  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford,  2d  edit.  London,  1870,  p.  116.  These  Essays, 
it  should  be  stated,  were  first  published  before  Dr.  Newman  entered  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  former  was  written  in  1825-26,  and  the  latter  in  18-12-43.  He  was  reconciled  to 
Rome  in  1845.  In  the  second  edition  of  the  united  essays  published  in  1870,  he  endorses 
them  anew  with  slight  qualification.  His  words  arc  (p.  viii.),  "These  distinct  views  of 
miraculous  agency,  thus  contrasted,  involve  no  inconsistency  with  each  other;  but  it  must 
be  owned  that,  in  the  essay  upon  the  Scripture  miracles,  the  author  goes  beyond  both  the 
needs  and  the  claims  of  his  argument,  when,  in  order  to  show  their  special  dignity  and 
beauty,  he  depreciates  the  purpose  and  value  of  the  miracles  of  Church  history.  To  meet 
this  undue  disparagement  in  his  first  essay,  of  facts  which  have  their  definite  place  in  the 
divine  dispensation,  he  points  out  in  his  second  the  essential  resemblance  which  exists  be- 
tween many  of  the  miracles  of  Scripture  and  those  of  the  later  times;  and  it  is  with  the 
same  drift  that,  in  this  edition,  a  few  remarks  at  the  foot  of  the  page  have  been  added  in 
brackets."  This  qualification  was  hardly  necessary,  as  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  second 
essay  contains  the  most  ingenious  defence  of  ecclesiastical  miracles  anywhere  to  be  found. 
It  is  generally  understood  that  Prof.  Newman  was  in  heart  a  Romanist  some  years  before 
his  secession  from  the  Church  of  England.  Of  this  his  famous  Tract  Number  90  of  the 
Oxford  series,  is  a  sufficient  proof. 

2  Ibid.  p.  150. 


§  18.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  455 

brute  nature,  uninfluenced  by  man."  A  more  felicitous  illustration 
can  hardly  be  imagined.  The  contrast  between  the  Gospels  and 
the  legends  of  the  saints,  is  that  between  the  divine  and  the 
human  and  even  the  animal ;  between  Christ  (with  reverence  be 
it  spoken)  and  St.  Anthony.  Another  principle  on  which  these 
ecclesiastical  miracles  may  be  classified,  is  the  design  for  which 
they  were  wrought  or  adduced.  Some  are  brought  forth  as  proofs 
of  the  sanctity  of  particular  persons,  or  places,  or  things  ;  some  to 
sustain  particular  doctrines,  such  as  purgatory,  transubstantiation, 
the  worsliipping  of  the  saints  and  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  etc.,  some 
for  the  identification  of  relics.  It  is  no  injustice  to  the  authorities 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  say,  that  whatever  good  ends  these  mir- 
acles may  in  any  case  be  intended  to  serve,  they  have  in  the  ag- 
gregate been  made  subservient  to  the  accumulation  of  money  and 
to  the  increase  of  power.  The  amount  of  money  dra^vn  from  the 
single  doctrine  of  purgatory  and  the  assumed  power  of  the  keys 
over  that  imaginary  place  of  torture,  is  beyond  all  computation. 
And  the  whole  fabric  of  priestly  power,  the  most  absolute  and  the 
most  dreaded  ever  exercised  over  men,  would  fall  to  the  ground 
if  it  were  not  the  belief  of  the  people,  founded  mainly  on  "  lying 
wonders,"  that  the  priests  have  power  to  forgive  sin,  to  save  or 
to  destroy  souls  at  will,  or  at  discretion.  If  this  doctrine  be 
false,  the  whole  Romish  system  is  false.  Romanists,  therefore, 
have  everything  at  stake  on  this  question.  Bishop  Jeremy  Tay- 
lor, writing  to  a  lady  "  seduced  to  the  Church  of  Rome,"  said 
long  ago,  "  All  the  points  of  difference  between  us  and  your 
Church  are  such  as  do  evidently  serve  the  ends  of  covetousness 
and  ambition,  of  power  and  riches."  ^ 

4.  A  fourth  general  remark  on  this  subject  is,  that  it  is  no  just 
matter  of  reproach  to  the  authorities  and  people  of  the  Romish 
Church  that  they  believed  in  these  false  miracles.  Faith  in  the 
frequently  recurring  interference  of  supernatural  influences,  in 
the  affairs  of  men,  was  for  ages  universal.  Even  so  late  as  the 
seventeenth  century  Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics,  of  all  ranks, 
believed  in  ghosts,  witches,  necromancy,  and  demonocracy.  Cotton 
Mather's  "  Magnalia  "  is  a  match  for  the  Legends  of  the  Saints. 

5.  It  is  not  that  Romanists  believed  in  the  frequent  occurrence 
jf  miracles,  but  that  they  propagated  reports  of  miracles,  know- 
ing them  to  be  false  ;  that  this  was  done  for  the  purposes  of  de- 
ceit ;  that  this  is  persisted  in  to  the  present  day  ;  and  that  the 

1  First  Letter  to  One  Seduced  to  the  Church  of  Rome  ;    WorJcs,  edit.  London,  1828,  vol, 
zi.  p.  189. 


466  PART  III.     Cn.   XTX.  —  THE  LAW. 

honour,  truth,  integrity,  and  infallibility  of  the  Church  are  pledged 
in  support  of  their  actual  occurrence.  The  truth  of  Christianity 
depends  on  the  historical  truth  of  the  account  of  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament.  The  truth  of  Romanism  depends 
on  the  truth  of  the  miracles  to  which  it  appeals.  What  would 
become  of  Protestantism  if  it  depended  on  the  demonology  of 
Luther,  or  the  witch  stories  of  our  English  forefathers.  The 
Romish  Church,  in  assuming  the  responsibility  for  the  ecclesias- 
tical miracles,  has  taken  upon  itself  a  burden  which  would  crush 
the  shoulders  of  Atlas.  These  "  lying  wonders  "  are  endorsed, 
not  only  by  the  negative  action  of  the  authorities  of  the  Church, 
by  allowing  them  to  be  believed  and  cited  in  proof  of  its  doc- 
trines and  divine  mission  ;  not  only  by  the  recognized  expounders 
of  its  faith  referring  to  them  and  asserting  their  truth  ;  but  also 
by  solemn  official  action  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  dignitaries, 
including  a  long  succession  of  popes.  As  no  one  could  be  canon- 
ized unless  his  saintship  was  sustained  by  at  least  four  miracles, 
when  any  one  Avas  proposed  for  canonization  a  commission  was 
appointed  to  ascertain  the  facts  of  his  life,  and  especially  of  the 
miracles  which  he  wrought.  This  commission  reported  to  the 
Pope,  who,  if  satisfied,  decreed  the  enrolment  of  the  candidate 
in  the  list  of  saints.  These  official  documents  contain  the  record 
of  the  most  trivial,  and,  on  other  grounds,  most  objectionable 
miracles,^  And  to  such  miracles  the  Church  of  Rome  has  given 
her  sanction,  and  on  the  truth  of  these  it  must  stand  or  fall. 

1  Accounts  of  these  miracles  may  be  found,  not  only  in  the  orif^inal  documents,  but  also 
in  numerous  works,  as  those  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet  and  others,  written  to  expose  the  im- 
postures of  the  Romish  Church.  The  Rev.  John  Gumming  of  London,  in  his  Lectures 
on  Romanism  (Boston,  18-54),  has  cited  from  these  official  records  examples  sufficiently 
numerous  to  satisfy  any  ordinary  man.  For  example,  it  is  said  of  Santa  Rosa  Maria  of 
Lima,  among  many  other  things,  that  the  Virgin  often  appeared  to  her  and  talked  with 
her;  that  the  Saviour  came  to  her  in  the  form  of  a  child  leaning  on  his  mother's  arm,  to  col- 
lect roses  scattered  on  the  ground,  and  then  the  Divine  infant  took  one  of  them  and  said 
"Thou  art  this  rose."  (Gumming,  p.  629.)  When  her  tomb  was  opened  fifteen  years 
after  death,  her  remains  "  exhaled  the  odor  of  roses."  Of  St.  Philip  Neri  it  is  said  that  he 
was  so  agitated  by  the  love  of  God,  that  the  Lord  broke  two  of  his  ribs  to  give  freer  action 
to  his  heart,  (p.  G.34. )  Of  Sister  Maria  Francisca,  it  is  certified  that  when  placing  a  holy 
Bambino  [i.  e.,  image  of  the  infant  Jesus)  into  the  manger,  such  a  light  emanated  from  the 
Bambino  as  to  blind  her  for  three  days.  On  another  occasion,  when  dressing  the  image, 
she  said,  "  My  little  child,  if  you  do  not  stretch  out  your  feet  I  cannot  put  on  your  shoes_ 
and  stockings,"  and  the  wooden  image  immediately  stretched  out  its  feet.  It  is  also  asserted 
that  she  obtained  from  Christ  permission  to  suffer  vicariously  for  a  limited  time,  in  the 
place  of  some  of  her  friends,  the  pains  of  purgatory,  and  accordingly  endured  for  a  month 
the  most  intense  agonies.  It  is  further  said,  that  she  had  imparted  to  her  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  his  bloody  sweat,  the  anguish  of  tiie  crown  of  thorns,  his  scourging  and  agonies  on 
the  cross,  and  had  his  wounds  visibly  impressed  upon  her.  (Cumming,  pp.  649-G53. )  Car- 
dinal Wiseman  edited  a  book  including  the  lives  of  several  saints,  and  among  them  that 
of  St.  Veronica  Giuliani,  who  was  canonized  so  recently'  as  1839.  Of  this  saint,  he  says, 
among  many  similar  things,  that  God  recompensed  her  readiness  to  drink  of  the  chalice  of 


§  13.]  THE  NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  457 

There  are,  however,  two  special  and  standing  miracles  to  which 
Romanists  are  fully  committed,  and  which  in  the  judgment  prob- 
ably of  nine  tenths  of  the  educated  men  in  Christendom  are  bare- 
faced impostures.  The  Church  of  Rome  by  its  highest  dignitaries 
and  representatives  asserted  and  still  continues  to  assert  that  the 
house  in  which  the  Virgin  Mary  dwelt  in  Nazareth  was,  when 
that  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  infidels,  transported  by  angels 
and  deposited  at  Loretto,  a  village  a  few  miles  from  Ancona  in 
Italy.  The  first  step  in  this  transportation  occurred  in  1291  from 
Nazareth  to  Dalmatia ;  the  second  in  1291  to  the  neighbourhood 
of  Recanati  ;  and  the  third  in  1295  to  its  present  location.  The 
house  is  thirty  feet  long,  fifteen  wide,  and  eighteen  high,  and  is 
built  of  wood  and  brick.  It  is  now  greatly  adorned,  having  a 
silver  door  and  a  silver  grating,  and  stands  in  the  midst  of  a  large 
chvirch  erected  over  and  around  it.  Its  shrine  was  enriched  with 
ojft'erings  of  priceless  value,  and  is  regarded  as  the  Mecca  of  Italy ; 
the  number  of  pilgrims  amounting  sometimes  to  two  hmidred 
thousand  in  a  single  year.  The  amiual  income  of  the  house,  apart 
from  presents,  is  stated  to  be  thirty  thousand  dollars.^  The  orig- 
inal house  is  said  to  be  a  facsimile  of  hundreds  of  others  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Ancona.  It  is  obvious  that  such  a  frail  building 
could  not,  without  a  miracle,  have  been  preserved  thirteen  hun- 
dred years ;  another  miracle  would  be  required  to  identify  it  after 
so  long  a  period ;  another  stupendous  miracle  to  account  for  its 
transportation  to  Dalmatia ;  and  two  more  nearly  as  great  to  ex- 
plain its  reaching  its  present  location.  The  only  conceivable  de- 
sign of  all  these  miracles,  must  be  to  sustain  the  doctrines  and 
authority  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  to  pour  money  into  its  treas- 
ury. Both  these  objects  they  have  accomplished  to  a  wonderful 
degree.  No  man  who  is  not  prepared  to  accept  all  these  mira- 
cles without  a  particle  of  evidence,  can  rationally  believe  in  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

The  other  standing  miracle  for  which  the  Romish  Church  is 
responsible  before  the  whole  world,  is  the  annual  liquefaction  of 
the  blood  of  St.  Januarius  at  Naples.  The  tradition  concerning 
him  is,  that  he  was  thrown  by  his  heathen  persecutors  into  a 
heated  oven,  where  he  remained  three  days  uninjured.  He  was 
afterwards  exposed  to  wild  beasts,  who  became  as  lambs  in  his 

suffering,  by  making  her  a  partalter  of  the  torments  of  Christ's  passion.  Christ  accordingly 
appeared  to  her  and  took  the  crown  of  thorns  and  placed  it  on  her  head.  (Gumming,  pp. 
665-675.)  Such  are  some  of  the  miracles  on  which  Rome  rests  her  claims  to  be  the  only 
true  Church  and  the  infallible  teacher  of  man. 

1  Convtrsatiow-Lexicon,  7th  edit.  Leipzig,  1827,  art.  "Loretto." 


458  PART  in.   Ch.  XIX. —  the  law. 

presence.  He  was  finally  beheaded,  A.  D.  305.  A  woman  ig 
said  to  have  caught  and  preserved  a  portion  of  his  blood.  This 
with  other  of  his  remains  was  carried  to  Naples,  being  iden- 
tified as  usual  by  a  miracle,  as  it  is  said,  "  NeapoUtani  beatum 
Januarium  revelatione  commoti  sustulerunt."  The  blood,  pre- 
served with  great  care  in  the  cathedral,  is  contained  in  two  crystal 
vials,  a  larger  and  smaller  one.  In  its  ordinary  state  it  is  a  hard 
substance,  sometimes  represented  as  filling  the  vial,  and  sometimes 
as  appearing  in  a  hard  round  lump.  The  blood  of  other  saints  is 
said  to  liquefy  on  the  anniversaries  of  their  martyrdom,  but  the 
blood  of  Januarius  becomes  liquid  whenever  the  vial  containing 
it  is  brought  near  to  the  skull  of  the  saint,  which  is  stiU  preserved. 
It  turns  readily  when  good  is  impending,  and  refuses  to  change 
when  evil  is  at  hand.  It  thus  serves  the  purpose  of  an  oracle. 
It  is  annually  produced  and  exhibited  to  crowds  of  devotees 
gathered  in  the  cathedral  on  the  first  Sunday  of  May,  and  also  on 
the  nineteenth  day  of  September  and  twentieth  of  December, 
and  at  other  times  on  extraordinary  emergencies.  To  this  miracle 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  fully  committed  as  it  is  exhibited  every 
year  under  the  eyes  of  the  pope  and  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the 
Church.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  for  the  facts  above 
stated  concerning  this  saint,  Avhich  may  not  be  pleaded  for  any 
one  of  the  thousands  of  stories  of  fairies  and  witches  with  which 
the  histories  of  all  nations  abound,  except  the  liquefaction  of  the 
blood.  As  to  that,  however,  it  is  to  be  said  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  the  substance  contained  in  the  vial  is  blood ;  or  if  blood, 
that  it  is  human  blood  ;  or  if  human,  that  it  is  the  blood  of  Jan- 
uarius ;  or  if  his,  that  the  cause  of  the  liquefaction  is  bringing 
the  vial  into  proximity  to  the  saint's  cranium.  All  that  the  people 
are  allowed  to  see,  the  change  of  a  dark-red  sohd  substance  into 
a  fluid,  any  chemist  could  effect  at  five  minutes'  notice.  It  is  true, 
as  Dr.  Newman  admits,  that  these  miracles  do  not  so  much  prove 
the  truth  of  the  Church,  as  the  Church  proves  the  truth  of  the 
miracles.     Then  what  are  they  worth. 

Melics. 

Relics  are  the  remains  of  sacred  persons  and  things,  which  are 
not  only  to  be  cherished  as  memorials,  but  to  which  "cultus  "  or 
a  certain  degree  of  religious  worship  is  due,  and  which  are  imbued 
with  supernatural  power.  They  heal  the  sick,  restore  sight  to 
the  blind,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  soundness  to  the  maimed,  and 
even,  at  times,  life  to  the  dead.     Of  these  the  Catholic  world  is 


§  13.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  459 

fulL^  Dr.  Newman  in  his  "  Lectures  on  the  Present  Position  of 
Catliohcs  in  England,"  delivered  after  his  reconcihation  with  the 
Church  of  Rome,  says,  "  At  Rome  there  is  the  True  Cross,  the 
Crib  of  Bethlehem,  and  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter  ;  portions  of  the 
Crown  of  Thorns  are  kept  at  Paris  ;  the  Holy  Coat  is  shown  at 
Treves  ;  the  Winding-sheet  at  Turin  :  at  Monza  the  iron  Crown 
is  formed  out  of  a  nail  of  the  Cross ;  and  another  nail  is  claimed 
for  the  Duomo  of  Milan  ;  and  pieces  of  Our  Lady's  habit  are  to 
be  seen  in  the  Escurial.  The  Agnus  Dei,  blest  medals,  the 
Scapula,  the  cord  of  St.  Francis,  all  are  the  medium  of  divine 
manifestations  and  graces."  ^ 

There  is  here  opened  an  illimitable  field  for  pious  fraud.  First, 
in  palming  upon  the  credulous  people  spurious  relics,  and,  sec- 
ondly in  falsely  attributing  to  them  supernatural  power.  It  has 
been  proved  in  many  cases  that  remains  passed  off  as  relics  of  the 
saints  were  bones  of  animals.  In  other  cases  it  is  impossible  that 
all  should  be  genuine,  as  bodies,  or  the  same  parts  of  bodies,  of  one 
and  the  same  man  are  exhibited  in  different  places.  There  is, 
as  has  often  been  asserted,  enough  wood  of  the  true  cross,  held 
sacred  in  different  localities,  out  of  which  to  construct  a  large 
building.  Writing  not  long  after  the  alleged  discovery  of  the 
cross  on  which  the  Saviour  died,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  says,  "  Sanc- 
tum crucis  hgnum  testatur,  quod  ad  hodiernum  usque  diem  apud 
nos  conspicitur,  ac  per  eos  qui  fide  impellente  ex  eo  frusta  decerp- 
unt  orbem  fere  totum  hinc  jam  opplevit."  And  again,  he  speaks 
of  "  crucis  lignum,  quod  per  particulas  ex  hoc  loco  per  totum 
orbem  distributum  est."  ^  St.  Paulinas,  who  is  one  of  the  long 
hst  of  witnesses  quoted  in  defence  of  the  veneration  of  rehcs,  says 
"  that  a  portion  of  the  cross  kept  at  Jerusalem  gave  off  fragments 
of  itself  mthout  diminishing."     This  is  the  only  way  in  which 

1  The  language  of  the  Council  of  Trent  in  reference  to  the  honour  due  to  the  relics  of  the 
saints  has  already  been  quoted  when  treating  of  the  second  commandment.  Perrone  in  his 
Pralectiones  Theolofficce,  De  Cultu  Snnctoruvi,  iv.  71,  edit.  Paris,  1861,  vol.  ii.  p.  112,  b, 
adduces  as  one  of  his  arguments  in  favour  of  the  worship  of  relics  the  declaration  of  the 
Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  that  the  heathen  feared  "  ne  Christiani,  relicto  Christo, 
Polycarpum  adorare  inciperent;  omni  idcirco  qua  poterant  ratione  martyrum  corpora, 
ne  a  Christianis  colerentur,  ethnici  gladiatorum  corporibus  commiscebant;  in  amphitheatris 
feris,  in  aquis  piscibus  ut  vorarentur  exponebant;  aut  saltern  igne  ilia  cremabant,  cinere 
dispergentes,  uti  ex  martyrum  actis  constat."  It  was  "  adoration,"  "  worship,"  that  was 
to  be  rendered  to  these  relics.  The  distinctions  between  the  different  kinds  of  worship,  had 
little  effect  on  the  popular  mind.  Perrone  himself  teaches  that  the  "material  heart  o^ 
Christ "  was  to  be  adored  htrloe  cultu.     De  Incarnntione,  ii.  iv.  454;  Ibid.  p.  31,  a. 

2  Quoted  by  Dr.  Cumming  in  his  Lectures  on  Romanism,  p.  595. 

3  Cdtechtsis  Illuminandorwn,  x.  19,  and  xiii.  4;    Opera,  Venice,  1763,  pp.  146,  c,  and 
184,  c. 


460  PART   III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

the  fact  in  question  can  be  accounted  for.  If  this  sohition  be  not 
admitted,  then  it  must  be  acknowledged  that,  at  least,  the  great 
majority  of  the  portions  of  the  cross  now  on  exhibition  must 
be  spurious.  There  is  no  historical  evidence  of  any  value  that 
any  portion  of  the  true  cross  has  been  preserved.  Nothing  was 
heard  of  it  until  a.  d.  327.  About  that  time,  according  to  the 
legend,  the  Empress  Helena,  in  searching  for  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
found  at  the  depth  of  thirty  feet  fi'om  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
three  crosses,  assumed  to  be  those  mentioned  in  the  Gospels.  The 
true  cross  was  identified,  some  say,  by  its  inscription  ;  others,  by  a 
sick  woman  being  touched  by  the  one  and  the  other  without  effect, 
but  restored  to  perfect  health  the  moment  the  true  cross  came  in 
contact  with  her  body.  Others  say  that  a  corpse  was  restored 
to  life  by  the  touch  of  the  true  cross.  In  reference  to  this  account 
it  may  be  remarked,  (1.)  That  there  is  a  strong  antecedent  im- 
probability that  the  crosses  used  on  Calvary  were  ever  buried. 
The  assumption  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  luiry 
those  implements  of  torture,  rests  on  a  very  precarious  foundation. 
(2.)  The  cross  was  a  very  slight  structure,  as  it  could  be  borne 
by  one  man ;  and,  therefore,  if  buried  superficially,  as  it  must 
have  been  at  first,  it  could  hardly  have  continued  undecayed  three 
hundred  years,  especially  considering  the  ploughings  and  over- 
turnings  to  which  the  Holy  City  was  subjected.  (3.)  The  histor- 
ical evidence  in  support  of  this  legend  is  of  little  account.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  twenty  years  after  the  date  assigned  to  the  discovery, 
does  indeed  say  that  the  true  cross  was  then  in  Jerusalem,  as  Je- 
rome does  some  sixty  years  later,  but  neither  of  them  makes  any 
mention  of  Helena  in  connection  with  the  cross  or  the  sepulchre. 
It  may,  therefore,  be  admitted  that  what  passed  for  the  true  cross 
was  then  in  Jerusalem,  but  the  account  of  its  recovery  and  iden- 
tification remains  without  support.  (4.)  The  historian  Eusebius, 
a  contemporary  and  eye-mtness,  makes  no  mention  of  the  finding 
of  the  cross,  an  event  the  belief  in  which  agitated  all  Christendom, 
and  led  to  the  immense  aggrandizement  of  the  bishopric  of  Jeru- 
salem. It  is  inconceivable  that  such  an  event,  if  within  his  knowl- 
>dge,  should  have  been  passed  over  in  silence  by  such  a  historian,  - 
who  had  so  much  at  heart  to  enchance  the  glory  of  his  patron  the 
Emperor.  (5.)  Calvary  and  the  sej)ulchre  we  know  were  without 
the  city.  The  place  where  the  cross  is  said  to  have  been  found  is 
in  the  centre  of  the  modern  city.  Whether  the  city  has  so  changed 
its  limits  as  to  bring  the  place  of  the  crucifixion  and  burial  of 
Christ  within  its  boundaries,  is  a  much  debated  question.     Dr. 


§13.]  THE   NINTH   COMMANDMENT.  461 

Robinson,  one  of  the  most  reliable  of  explorers,  says,  "  The  hy- 
pothesis which  makes  the  second  wall  so  run  as  to  exclude  the 
alleged  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  is  on  topographical  grounds 
untenable  and  impossible."  ^     That  is,  assuming  the  truth  of  the 
statement  of  the  Evangelists  that  Christ  was  crucified  without  the 
walls,  it  is  topographically  impossible  that  the  alleged  site  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  should  be  the  true  one.      And  thus  the  whole 
foundation  of  the  legend  of  finding  the  cross  on  that  spot  falls  to 
the  ground.     Dr.  Robinson  winds  up  his  long  discussion  of  tliis 
question  in  the  following  words  :  "  Thus  in  every  view  which  I 
have  been  able  to  take  of  the  question,  both  topographical  and 
historical,  whether  on  the  spot  or  in  the  closet,  and  in  spite  of  all 
my  previous  prepossessions,  I  am  led  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  Golgotha  and  the  tomb  now  shown  in  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  are  not  upon  the  real  places  of  the  crucifixion  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.     The  alleged  discovery  of  them  by  the 
aged  and  credulous  Helena,  like  her  discovery  of  the  cross,  may 
not  improbably  have  been  the  work  of  pious  fraud.     It  would 
perhaps  not  be  doing  injustice  to  the  Bishop  Macarius  and  his 
clergy,  if  we  regard  the  whole  as  a  well  laid  and  successful  plan 
for  restoring  to  Jerusalem  its  former  consideration,  and  elevating 
his  see  to  a  higher  degree  of  influence  and  dignity."  ^ 

Dr.  Newman  says  we  must  either  admit  the  discovery  of  the 
cross,  or  believe  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  guilty  of  imposture.^ 
It  is  hard  to  decide  how  much  is  due  in  this  matter  to  fraud,  and 
how  much  to  superstitious  creduHty.  That  both  prevailed  for 
ages  in  the  Church  is  an  undoubted  historical  fact.  Are  we  to  be- 
Heve  all  that  Gregory  of  Nyssa  said  of  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea, 
or  what  the  fathers  relate  of  St.  Anthony  ;  are  we  to  admit  all  the 
legends  of  the  saints,  to  avoid  charging  creduhty  or  fraud  against 
o-ood  men  ?  It  is  lamentable  that  good  men  advocated  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  right  to  deceive  for  a  good  end.  It  is  undeniable 
that  the  doctrine  of  pious  frauds  has  been  avowed  and  acted  upon 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  ever  since  it  began  to  aspire  to  ecclesiastical 
supremacy.  Was  not  the  pretended  donation  of  Italy  by  Con- 
stantine  to  the  pope  a  fraud?  Are  not  the  Isidorian  Decretals  a 
fraud  ?  Are  not  the  miracles  wi'ought  in  proof  of  the  delivery  of 
souls  from  purgatory,  frauds  ?     Is  not  the  alleged  house  of  the 

1  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  Mount  Sinai,  and  Arabia  Petrma.  A  Journal  of  Trav- 
els in  the  year  133S,  by  E.  Robinson  and  E.  Smith.  Drawn  up  from  the  Ori final  Dia- 
i-ies,  etc.  By  Edward  Robinson,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.    Boston,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  69. 

2  Jlid.  p.  80.  ^  Essays  on  Miracles,  p.  297. 


462  PART   III.     Ch.   XIX.  — the   law. 

Vii-giii  Mary  at  Loretto  a  fraud  ?  Is  not  the  foot-print  (ex  pede 
Hercules)  on  a  marble  slab  in  the  Cathedral  of  Rouen,  a  fraud  ? 
Is  not  the  feather  from  the  ^ving  of  the  Archangel  Gabriel  pre- 
served in  one  of  the  Cathedrals  of  Spain,  a  fraud  ?  The  whole 
Catholic  world  is  full  of  frauds  of  this  kind  ;  and  the  only  possible 
ground  for  Romanists  to  take  is,  that  it  is  right  to  deceive  the 
people  for  their  good.  "  Populus  vult  decipi,"  is  the  excuse  a 
Romish  priest  once  made  to  Coleridge  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

Secondly,  pious  frauds  are  practised,  not  only  in  the  exhibition 
of  false  relics,  but  also  in  falsely  attributing  to  them  supernatural 
power.  Dr.  Newman  says  :  "  The  store  of  relics  is  inexhaustible  ; 
they  are  multiplied  through  all  lands,  and  each  particle  of  each 
has  in  it  at  least  a  dormant,  perhaps  an  energetic  virtue  of  super- 
natural operation."  ^  Bellarmin  of  course  teaches  the  same  ^  doc- 
trine. Cyril  of  Jerusalem  says,  "  Et  Elisaeum  qui  semel  et  iterum 
suscitavit,  dum  viveret,  et  post  mortem  :  vivus  resurrectionem  per 
suam  ipsius  animam  operatus  est,  ut  autem  non  animae  solum 
justorum  honoi'arentur,  sed  crederetur  etiam  in  justorum  corpori- 
bus  jacere  vim,  projectus  in  monumentum  Elisasi  mortuus  proph- 
etae  corpus  attingens,  vitam  concepit,  4  Kin.  iv.  13,  ut  ostende- 
retur,  absente  etiam  anima  inesse  vim  corpori  sanctorum  propter 
animam  justam,  qua3  in  eo  habitaverat."  ^  Dr.  Newman  says 
that  miracles  ^vrought  by  relics  are  of  daily  occurrence  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.  It  is  not  that  people  are  favourably  af- 
fected by  them  through  the  imagination  or  feelings,  but  that 
the  relics  themselves  are  imbued  -with  supernatural  power. 
Thus  Dr.  Newman,  one  of  the  most  cultivated  men  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  has  come  round  to  the  pure,  simple,  undiluted 
feticliism  of  Africa. 

Our  Lord  Avarned  his  disciples  against  being  deceived  by  lying 
wonders.  The  Bible  (Deut.  xiii.  1-3)  teaches  that  any  sign  or 
wonder  given  or  A\a-ought  in  support  of  any  doctrine  contrary  to 
the  Word  of  God,  is,  without  further  examination,  to  be  pro- 
nounced false.  If,  therefore,  such  doctrines  as  the  supremacy  of 
the  pope  ;  the  power  of  priests  to  forgive  sins  ;  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  the  sacraments  as  the  only  channels  of  communicating  the' 
merits  and  grace  of  Christ ;  the  necessity  of  auricular  confession  ; 
purgatory ;  the  adoration  of  the  Virgin  and  of  the  consecrated 
wafer ;  and  the  worship  of  saints  and  angels,  are  contrary  to  the 

1  Lectures  on  the  Position  of  Catholics  in  England,  p.  28-1. 

2  See  above  pp.  300,  301. 

8  Catechesis  llluminandoricm,  xviii.  16;  Opera,  Venice,  ITfiS,  p.  293,  a,  b. 


§  M.]  THE   TENTH   COMMANDMENT.  463 

Holy  Scriptures,  then  to  a  certainty  all  the  pretended  miracles 
wrought  in  their  support  are  "  lying  wonders  ;  "  and  those  who 
promulgate  and  sustain  them  are  guilty  of  pious  fraud.  If,  there- 
fore, as  Newman  says.  The  Catholic  Church,  from  east  to  west, 
from  north  to  south,  is,  according  to  our  conceptions,  hung  with 
miracles ;  so  much  the  worse.  It  is  hung  all  over  with  the  symbols 
or  ensigns  of  apostasy. 

§  14.   The  Tenth  Commandment 

Is  a  general  prohibition  of  covetousness.  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  is  a  comprehensive  command.  Thou  shalt  not  inordi- 
nately desire  what  thou,  hast  not ;  and  especially  what  belongs 
to  thy  neighbour.  It  includes  the  positive  command  to  be  con- 
tented with  the  allotments  of  Providence ;  and  the  negative 
inj miction  not  to  repine,  or  complain  on  account  of  the  dealings 
of  God  with  us,  or  to  envy  the  lot  or  possessions  of  others.  The 
command  to  be  contented  does  not  imply  indifference,  and  it  does 
not  enjoin  slothfulness,  A  cheerful  and  contented  disposition  is 
perfectly  compatible  with  a  due  appreciation  of  the  good  things  of 
this  world,  and  diligence  in  the  use  of  all  proper  means  to  im- 
prove our  condition  in  life. 

Contentment  can  have  no  other  rational  foundation  than  rehg- 
ion.  Submission  to  the  inevitable  is  only  stoicism,  or  apathy, 
or  despair.  The  religions  of  the  East,  and  of  the  ancient  world 
generally,  so  far  as  they  were  the  subject  of  thought,  being  essen- 
tially pantheistic,  could  produce  nothing  but  a  passive  consent  to 
be  borne  along  for  a  definite  period  on  the  irresistible  current  of 
events,  and  then  lost  in  the  abyss  of  unconscious  being.  The 
poor  and  the  miserable  could  with  such  a  faith  have  little  ground 
for  contentment,  and  they  would  be  under  the  strongest  tempta- 
tion to  envy  the  rich  and  the  fortunate.  But  if  a  man  believes 
that  there  is  a  personal  God  infinite  in  power,  wisdom,  and  love  ; 
if  he  believes  that  God's  providence  extends  over  all  creatures 
and  over  all  events ;  and  if  he  believes  that  God  orders  every- 
thing, not  only  for  the  best  on  the  whole,  but  also  for  the  best  for 
each  individual  who  puts  his  trust  in  Him  and  acquiesces  in  his 
will,  then  not  to  be  contented  with  the  allotments  of  infinite 
wisdom  and  love  must  be  folly.  Faith  in  the  truths  referred 
to  cannot  fail  to  produce  contentment,  wherever  that  faith  is  real. 
When  we  further  take  into  view  the  peculiar  Christian  aspects 
of  the  case ;  when  we  remember  that  this  universal  government 
is  administered  by  Jesus  Christ,  into  whose  hands,  as  He  himself 


464  PART  m.    Ch.  XIX.  — the  law. 

tells  us,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  has  been  committed,  then 
we  know  that  our  lot  is  determined  by  Him  who  loved  us  and 
gave  Himself  for  us,  and  who  watches  over  his  people  as  a  shep- 
herd watches  over  his  flock,  so  that  a  hair  of  our  heads  camiot 
perish  without  his  permission.  And  when  we  think  of  the 
eternal  future  which  He  has  prepared  for  us,  then  we  see  that 
the  sorrows  of  this  life  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us,  and  that  our  light  afflictions, 
which  are  but  for  a  moment,  shall  work  out  for  us  a  far  more 
exceeding  and  an  eternal  weight  of  glory ;  then  mere  content- 
ment is  elevated  to  a  peace  which  passes  all  understanding,  and 
even  to  a  joy  which  is  full  of  glory.  All  this  is  exemplified  in 
the  history  of  the  people  of  God  as  recorded  in  the  Bible.  Paul 
could  not  only  say,  "•  I  have  learned,  in  whatsoever  state  I  am, 
therewith  to  be  content "  (Phil.  iv.  11) ;  but  he  could  also  say : 
"  I  take  pleasure  in  infirmities,  in  reproaches,  in  necessities,  in 
persecutions,,  in  distresses  for  Christ's  sake."  (2  Cor.  xii.  10.) 
This  has  measurably  been  the  experience  of  thousands  of  be- 
lievers in  all  ages.  Of  all  peoi^le  in  the  world  Christians  are 
bound  in  whatsoever  state  they  are  therewith  to  be  content.  It 
is  easy  to  utter  these  words,  and  easy  for  those  in  comfort  to 
imagine  that  they  are  exercising  the  grace  of  contentment ;  but 
when  a  man  is  crushed  down  by  poverty  and  sickness,  surrounded 
by  those  whose  wants  he  cannot  supply ;  seeing  those  whom  he 
loves,  suffering  and  wearing  away  under  their  privations,  then 
contentment  and  submission  are  among  the  highest  and  rarest  of 
Christian  graces.  Nevertheless,  it  is  better  to  be  Lazarus  than 
Dives. 

The  second  form  of  evil  condemned  by  this  commandment 
is  envy.  This  is  something  more  than  an  inordinate  desire  of  un- 
possessed good.  It  includes  regret  that  others  should  have  what 
we  do  not  enjoy  ;  a  feeling  of  hatred  and  malignity  towards  those 
more  favoured  than  ourselves ;  and  a  desire  to  deprive  them  of 
their  advantages.  This  a  real  cancer  of  the  soul ;  producing  tor- 
ture and  eating  out  all  right  feelings.  There  are,  of  course,  all 
degrees  of  this  sin,  from  the  secret  satisfaction  experienced  at  the- 
misfortunes  of  others,  or  the  unexpressed  desire  that  evil  may  as- 
sail them  or  that  they  may  be  reduced  to  the  same  level  with  our- 
selves, to  the  Satanic  hatred  of  the  happy  because  of  their  happi- 
ness, and  the  determination,  if  possible,  to  render  them  miserable. 
There  is  more  of  this  dreadful  spirit  in  the  human  heart,  than 
we  are  willing  to  acknowledge.     Montesquieu  says  that  every 


§  14.]  THE   TKNTH   COMMANDMENT.  465 

man  has  a  secret  satisfaction  in  the  misfortunes  even  of  his 
dearest  friends.  As  envy  is  the  antithesis  of  love,  it  is  of  all 
sins  the  most  opposed  to  the  nature  of  God,  and  more  effectually 
than  any  other  excludes  us  from  his  fellowship. 

Thirdly,  the  Scriptures,  however,  make  mention  most  fre- 
quently of  covetousness  under  the  form  of  an  inordinate  desire  of 
wealth.  The  man  of  whom  covetousness  is  the  characteristic 
has  the  acquisition  of  wealth  as  the  main  object  of  his  life.  This 
fills  his  mind,  engrosses  his  affections,  and  absorbs  his  energy. 
Of  covetousness  in  this  form  the  Apostle  says  it  is  the  root  of 
all  evil.  That  is,  there  is  no  evil  —  from  meanness,  deceit,  and 
fraud,  up  to  murder  —  to  the  commission  of  which  covetousness 
has  not  prompted  men,  or  to  which  it  does  not  always  threaten 
to  impel  them.  Of  the  covetous  man  in  this  sense  of  the 
word  the  Bible  says,  (1.)  That  he  cannot  enter  heaven. 
(1  Cor.  vi.  10.)  (2.)  That  he  is  an  idolater.  (Eph.  v.  5.) 
Wealth  is  his  God,  i.  e.,  that  to  which  he  gives  his  heart  and 
consecrates  his  life.     (3.)  That  God  abhors  him.     (Ps.  x.  3.) 

This  commandment  has  a  special  interest,  as  it  was  the  means, 
as  St.  Paul  tells  us,  of  leading  him  to  the  knowledge  of  sin.  "  I 
had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not 
covet."  (Rom.  vii.  7.)  Most  of  the  other  commandments  for- 
bid external  acts,  but  this  forbids  a  state  of  the  heart.  It  shows 
that  no  external  obedience  can  fulfil  the  demands  of  the  law  ; 
that  God  looks  upon  the  heart,  that  He  approves  or  disapproves 
of  the  secret  affections  and  purposes  of  the  soul ;  that  a  man  may 
be  a  pharisee,  pure  outwardly  as  a  whited  sepulchre,  but  in- 
wardly full  of  dead  men's  bones  and  of  all  micleanness. 

VOL.  III.  30 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  MEAJ^S   OF   GRACE. 

By  means  of  grace  are  not  meant  every  instrumentality  which 
God  may  please  to  make  the  means  of  spiritual  edification  to  his 
children.  The  phrase  is  intended  to  indicate  those  institutions 
which  God  has  ordained  to  be  the  ordinary  channels  of  grace,  z,  e., 
of  the  supernatural  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the  souls  of 
men.  The  means  of  grace,  according  to  the  standards  of  our 
Church,  are  the  word,  sacraments,  and  prayer. 

§  1.   The  Word. 

1.  The  word  of  God,  as  here  understood,  is  the  Bible.  And 
the  Bible  is  the  collection  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments. 

2.  These  books  are  the  word  of  God  because  they  were  written 
by  men  who  Avere  prophets,  his  organs,  or  spokesmen,  in  such  a 
sense  that  whatever  they  declare  to  be  true  or  obligatory,  God 
declares  to  be  true  and  binding.  These  topics  have  already  been 
considered  in  the  first  volume  of  this  work,  so  far  as  they  fall 
within  the  limits  of  systematic  theology. 

3.  The  word  of  God,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned,  is  an  in- 
dispensable means  of  salvation.  True  religion  never  has  existed, 
and  never  can  exist,  where  the  truths  revealed  in  the  Bible  are 
unknown.  This  point  also  has  already  been  discussed  when 
speaking  of  the  insuSiciency  of  natural  religion. 

4.  The  word  of  God  is  not  only  necessary  to  salvation,  but  it 
is  also  divinely  efficacious  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  end. 
This  appears,  (a.)  From  the  commission  given  to  the  Church. 
After  his  resurrection  our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples:  "Go  ye- 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gliost ;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you : 
and,  lo,  I  am  mth  you  alwaj^  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen."  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20).  The  words  as  recorded  in  Mark 
xvi.  15,  16,  are,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  ivorld,  and  preach  the  gos- 


§  1.]  thp:  word.  467 

pel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  The  end  to 
be  accomplished,  was  the  salvation  of  men.  The  means  of  its 
accomplishment  was  teaching.  The  disciples  were  to  teach  what 
Christ  had  taught  them.  That  is,  they  were  to  teach  the  Gos- 
pel to  every  creature  under  heaven.  All  means  derive  their  effi- 
ciency from  the  ordinance  of  God ;  as  He  has  ordained  the  Gospel 
to  be  the  means  of  salvation,  it  must  be  efficacious  to  that  end. 
(6.)  This  appears  further  from  the  manner  in  which  the  Apostles 
executed  the  commission  which  they  had  received.  They  went 
everywhere,  preaching  Christ.  They  were  sent  to  teach ;  and 
teaching  was  their  whole  work.  "  I  determined,"  said  Paul,  "not 
to  know  anything  among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ  and  him  cruci- 
fied." (1  Cor.  ii.  2.)  (c.)  The  power  of  the  Word  is  proved  from 
many  direct  assertions  in  the  Bible.  Paul  tells  the  Romans  that 
he  was  not  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  because  "  it  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation."  (Rom.  i.  16.)  To  the  Corinthians 
he  says,  in  view  of  the  utter  impotence  of  the  wisdom  of  the 
world,  that  "  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to 
save  them  that  believe."  (1  Cor.  i.  21.)  The  preaching  of  Christ 
crucified  was  "  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  unto  the 
Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are  called,  both  Jews 
and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God." 
(Vers.  23,  24.)  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  is  said :  "  The 
word  of  God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two- 
edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and 
spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."   (Heb.  iv.  12.) 

The  sacred  writers,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are 
exuberant  in  their  praise  of  the  Word  of  God,  as  its  power  was 
revealed  in  their  own  experience.  "  The  law  of  the  Lord," 
says  the  Psalmist,  "  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul."  (Ps.  xix.  7.) 
By  the  law  of  the  Lord  is  meant  the  whole,  revelation  Avhich  God 
has  made  in  his  Word  to  determine  the  faith,  form  the  character, 
and  control  the  conduct  of  men.  It  is  this  revelation  which  the 
Psalmist  pronounces  perfect,  that  is,  perfectly  adapted  to  accom- 
plish the  end  of  man's  sanctification  and  salvation.  "  Thy  word," 
he  says,  "  is  a  lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my  path." 
(Ps.  cxix.  105.)  "  The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise 
the  simple  :  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart : 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes : 
the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  forever :  the  judgments 


4G8         PART  III.     Cii.   XX.— THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous  altogether.  More  to  be  de- 
sired are  they  than  gold,  yea,  than  much  fine  gold ;  sweeter  also 
than  honey  and  the  honeycomb."  (Ps.  xix.-  7-10.)  Almost  every 
one  of  the  hundred  and  seventy-six  verses  of  the  one  hundred  and 
nineteenth  Psalm  contains  some  recognition  of  the  excellence  or 
power  of  the  Word  of  God.  "  Is  not  my  word  like  as  a  fire? 
saith  the  Lord ;  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock  in 
pieces?"    (Jer.  xxiii.  29.) 

In  the  New  Testament  the  same  divine  efiicacy  is  attributed  to 
the  Word  of  God.  It  is  the  gospel  of  our  salvation,  i.  e.,  that  by 
which  we  are  saved.  Paul  said  that  Christ  commissioned  him  to 
preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  saying,  for  this  purpose  I  ap- 
peared unto  thee  to  make  thee  minister  and  a  witness,  delivering 
thee  from  the  Gentiles,  "  unto  whom  now  I  send  thee,  to  open 
their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the 
power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith 
that  is  in  me."  (Acts  xxvi.  17,  18.)  All  this  was  to  be  effected 
by  the  Gospel.  The  same  Apostle  writing  to  Timothy  says  : 
"  From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are 
able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction 
in  righteousness."  (%  Tim.  iii.  15,  16.)  The  Apostle  Peter  says 
that  men  are  "  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 
(1  Pet.  i.  23.)  Our  Lord  prayed,  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy 
truth :  thy  word  is  truth."   (John  xvii.  17.) 

Testimony/  of  History. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
the  Word  of  God  is  the  specially  appointed  means  for  the  sancti- 
fication  and  the  salvation  of  men.  This  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is 
fully  confirmed  by  the  experience  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world. 
That  experience  teaches,  —  First,  that  no  evidences  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  no  indications  of  the  saving  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  found 
where  the  Word  of  God  is  unknown.  This  is  not  saying  that  none 
such  occur.  We  laiow  from  the  Bible  itself,  "  That  God  is  no  re- 
specter of  persons ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and 
worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  Avith  him."  (Acts  x.  34,  35.) 
No  one  doubts  tliat  it  is  in  the  power  of  God  to  call  whom  He 
pleases  from  among  the  heathen  and  to  reveal  to  them  enough 


g  1.]  THE  WORD.  469 

truth  to  secure  their  salvation.^  Nevertheless  it  remains  a  fact 
patent  to  all  eyes  that  the  nations  where  the  Bible  is  unknown  sit 
in  darkness.  The  absence  of  the  Bible  is  just  as  distinctly  dis- 
cernible as  the  absence  of  the  sun.  The  declaration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  that  "  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness  "  (1  John  v. 
19)  ;  and  that  declaration  is  confirmed  by  all  history. 

A  second  fact  on  which  the  testimony  of  experience  is  equally 
clear  is,  that  true  Christianity  flourishes  just  in  proportion  to  the 
degree  in  which  the  Bible  is  known,  and  its  truths  are  diffused 
among  the  people.  During  the  apostolic  age  the  messengers  of 
Christ  went  everywhere  preaching  his  Gospel,  in  season  and  out  of 
season  ;  proving  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God  ;  requiring  those  to  whom  they  preached  to 
search  the  Scriptures  ;  exhorting  ^^ounger  ministers  to  preach  the 
Word  ;  to  hold  forth  the  Word  of  life  ;  to  give  attendance  to  read- 
ing, exhortation,  and  doctrine  ;  to  meditate  upon  these  things 
and  to  give  themselves  wholly  to  them.  During  this  period  the 
Gospel  made  more  rapid  progress,  and  perhaps  brought  forth  more 
abundant  fruits  than  during  any  equally  long  period  of  its  history. 
When,  however,  the  truth  began  to  be  more  and  more  corrupted 
by  the  speculations  of  philosophy,  and  by  the  introduction  of  the 
Jewish  doctrines  concerning  ceremonies  and  the  priesthood  ;  when 
"  reserve"  in  preaching  came  into  vogue,  and  it  was  held  to  be 
both  lawful  and  wise  to  conceal  the  truth,  and  awaken  reverence 
and  secure  obedience  by  other  means  ;  and  when  Christian  wor- 
ship was  encumbered  by  heathen  rites,  and  the  trust  of  the  peo- 
ple turned  away  fr6m  God  and  Christ,  to  the  virgin  and  saints, 
then  the  shades  of  night  overspread  the  Church,  and  the  darknesa 
became  more  and  more  intense,  until  the  truth  or  light  was  almost 
entirely  obscured.  At  the  Reformation,  when  the  chained  Bible 
was  brought  from  the  cloisters,  given  to  the  press,  and  scattered 
over  Europe,  it  was  like  the  bright  rising  of  the  sun  :  the  darkness 
was  dissipated ;  the  Church  arose  from  the  dust,  and  put  on  her 
beautiful  garments,  for  the  glory  of  God  had  arisen  upon  her. 
Wherever  the  reading  and  preaching  of  the  Word  was  unrestricted, 
there  light,  liberty,  and  true  religion  prevailed,  in  a  proportionate 

1  In  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  chapter  i.,  it  is  sairt:  "Cum  hodie  hoc  Dei  verbum 
per  proedicatores  legitime  vocatos  annunciatur  in  ecclesia,  credimus  ipsum  Dei  verbum  an- 
nunciari,  et  a  fidelibus  recipi,  neque  aliud  Dei  verbum  vel  fingendum  vel  coclitus  esse  ex- 

pectandum Agnoscimus  interim,  Deum  illumiiiare  posse  homines  etiam  sine  extemo 

ministerio,  quos  et  quando  velit:  id  quod  ejus  potentias  est.  Nos  autem  loquimur  de  usitata 
ratione  instituendi  homines,  et  prajcepto  et  exemplo  tradita  nobis  a  Deo." — Niemeyer, 
CoUectio  Confesslonum,  Leipzig,  18-tO,  pp.  467,  468. 


i70       PART  III.    Cii.  XX. —  THE  mp:ans  of  grace. 

degree.  Wherever  the  Bible  was  suppressed  and  the  preaching 
of  its  truths  was  forbidden,  there  the  darkness  continued  and  still 
abides. 

A  third  important  fact  equally  well  established  is,  that  true 
religion  prevails  in  any  community,  in  proportion  to  the  degree 
in  which  the  young  are  instructed  in  the  facts  and  indoctrinated 
in  the  truths  of  the  Bible.  This,  in  one  view,  is  included  under 
the  previous  head,  but  it  deserves  separate  notice.  The  question 
does  not  concern  the  reason  why  the  religious  education  of  the 
young  is  so  important ;  or  the  way  in  which  that  education  can 
most  advantageously  be  secured ;  but  simply  the  fact  that  where 
the  young  are  from  the  beginning  imbued  with  the  knowledge  of 
the  Bible,  there  pure  Christianity  abides  ;  and  where  they  are 
allowed  to  grow  up  in  ignorance  of  divine  truth,  there  true  relig- 
ion languishes  and  loses  more  and  more  its  power.  Such  is  the 
testimony  of  experience. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  united  testimony  of  Scripture  and  of  history 
that  the  Bible,  the  Word  of  God,  is  the  great  means  of  promoting 
the  sanctification  and  salvation  of  men,  that  is,  of  securing  their 
temporal  and  eternal  well  being.  Those  consequently  who  are 
opposed  to  religion  ;  who  desire  the  reign  of  indifferentism,  or  the 
return  of  heathen  doctrines  and  heathen  morality,  are  consistent 
and  wise  in  their  generation,  in  endeavouring  to  undermine  the 
authority  of  the  Bible ;  to  discourage  its  circulation  ;  to  dis- 
countenance attendance  on  its  preaching  ;  and  especially  to  oppose 
its  being  effectually  taught  to  the  young.  Those  on  the  other 
hand  who  believe  that  without  holiness  no  nlan  can  see  God,  and 
that  without  the  light  of  divine  truth,  holiness  is  impossible,  are 
bound  as  pastors,  as  parents,  and  as  citizens  to  insist  that  the  Bible 
shall  have  free  course,  and  that  it  shall  be  faithfully  taught  to 
all  under  their  influence  or  for  whose  training  they  are  responsible. 

To  what  is  the  Power  of  the  Word  to  he  attributed  f 

It  being  admitted  as  a  fact  that  the  Bible  has  the  power 
attributed  to  it,  the  question  arises.  To  what  is  that  due  ?  To 
this  question  different  answers  are  given.  Some  say  that  its 
whole  power  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  truths  which  it  contains. 
This  is  the  doctrine  held  by  Pelagians  and  Rationalists.  On  this 
subject  it  may  be  remarked,  (1.)  That  all  truth  has  an  adapta- 
tion to  the  human  mind  and  tends  to  produce  an  impression  in 
accordance  with  its  nature.  If  a  mind  could  be  conceived  of 
destitute  of   all  truth,  it  would  be  in  a  state   of  idiocy.     The 


§  1.]  THE   AVORD.  471 

mind  is  roused  to  action  and  expanded,  and  its  power  is  in- 
creased by  the  truth,  and,  other  things  being  equal,  in  proportion 
to  the  amount  of  truth  communicated  to  it,  (2.)  It  is  tlie  ten- 
dency of  all  moral  truth  in  itself  considered,  to  excite  right  moral 
feelings  and  to  lead  to  right  moral  action.  (3.)  It  is  further 
conceded  that  the  truths  of  the  Bible  and  the  sources  of  moral 
power  therein  contained  are  of  the  highest  possible  order.  The 
doctrine,  for  example,  therein  taught  concerning  God,  that  He 
is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  being,  wis- 
dom, power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth,  is  immeasur- 
ably above  all  that  human  reason  ever  discovered  or  human 
philosophy  ever  taught.  There  is  more  moral  power  in  that 
single  truth,  than  in  all  the  systems  of  moral  philosophy.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  Avhat  the  Bible  teaches  of  God's  relation 
to  the  world.  He  is  not  merely  its  creator  and  architect,  but 
also  its  constant  preserver  and  governor ;  everywhere  present, 
working  with  and  by  his  creatures,  using  each  according  to  its 
nature,  and  overruling  all  things  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
highest  and  most  beneficent  designs.  To  his  rational  creatures, 
especially  to  men.  He  reveals  Himself  as  a  father,  loving,  guid- 
ing, and  providing  for  them  ;  never  afflicting  them  willingly,  but 
only  when  it  would  be  morally  wrong  to  do  otherwise.  The 
Bible  doctrine  concerning  man  is  not  only  true,  conformed  to  all 
that  man  reveals  himself  to  be,  but  it  is  eminently  adapted  to 
make  him  what  he  was  designed  to  be :  to  exalt  without  inflat- 
ing ;  to  humble  without  degrading  him.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
God  made  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth  and  breathed  into 
him  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  became  a  living  soul  conformed 
to  the  image  of  God  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness. 
Thus  man  is  apparently  the  lowest  of  God's  rational  creatures, 
but  made  capable  of  indefinite  progress  in  capacity,  excellence, 
and  blessedness.  The  actual  state  of  man  however  exhibits  a 
sad  contrast  with  this  account  of  his  original  condition.  The 
Bible  accordingly  informs  us  that  man  fell  from  the  state  in 
which  he  was  created  by  sinning  against  God.  Thus  sin  was 
introduced  into  the  world :  all  men  are  sinners,  that  is,  guilty, 
polluted,  and  helpless.  These  are  facts  of  consciousness,  as  well 
as  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures  however  inform  us 
that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whoso  believeth  on  Him  might  not  perish  but  have  ever- 
lasting life.  We  are  told  that  this  Son  is  the  image  of  God, 
equal  with  God.     By  Him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in 


472         PART   III.     Ch.   XX— the   means    of    grace. 

heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they 
be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principaHties  or  powers :  all  things 
were  created  by  Him  and  for  Him;  and  He  is  before  all  things, 
and  by  Him  all  things  consist.  This  divine  Person,  for  us  and 
for  our  salvation,  took  upon  Him  our  nature,  fulfilled  all  right- 
eousness, bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree  ;  and  having 
died  for  our  offences,  rose  again  for  our  justification  ;  and  is  now 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high ;  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth  having  been  committed  to  his  hands.  There  is 
more  of  power  to  sanctify,  to  elevate,  to  strengthen  and  to  cheer 
in  the  single  word  Jesus,  which  means  "  Jehovah-saviour,"  than 
in  all  the  utterances  of  men  since  the  world  began.  This  divine 
and  exalted  Saviour  has  sent  forth  his  discij^les  to  preach  his 
Gospel  to  every  creature,  promising  pardon,  sanctification,  and 
eternal  life,  including  a  participation  in  his  glory,  to  every  one, 
on  the  sole  condition  that  he  receive  Him  as  his  God  and  Sav- 
iour, and,  trusting  in  Him  alone  for  salvation,  honestly  endeav- 
our to  do  his  mil ;  that  is,  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart  and 
his  neighbour  as  himself,  and  to  do  to  others  as  he  would  have 
others  do  to  him.  In  view  of  all  these  truths,  God  asks,  "  What 
could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done 
in  it?"  All  the  resources  of  moral  power  are  exhausted  in  the 
Bible.  Every  consideration  that  can  affect  the  intellect,  the  con- 
science, the  feelings,  and  the  hopes  of  man  is  therein  presented : 
yet  all  in  vain. 

There  are  two  conditions  necessary  for  the  production  of  a 
given  effect.  The  one  is  that  the  cause  should  have  the  requisite 
eflBciency ;  and  the  other,  that  the  object  on  which  it  acts  should 
have  the  requisite  susceptibility.  The  sun  and  rain  shed  their 
genial  influences  on  a  desert,  and  it  remains  a  desert ;  when 
those  influences  fall  on  a  fertile  plain,  it  is  clothed  \ntl\  all  the 
wonders  of  vegetable  fertility  and  beauty.  The  mid-day  bright- 
ness of  the  sun  has  no  more  effect  on  the  eyes  of  the  blind  than  a 
taper ;  and  if  the  eye  be  bleared  the  clearest  light  only  enables  it 
to  see  men  as  trees  walking.  It  is  so  with  moral  truth :  no  mat- 
ter what  may  be  its  inherent  power,  it  fails  of  any  salutary  effect 
unless  the  mind  to  which  it  is  presented  be  in  a  fit  state  to 
receive  it. 

The  minds  of  men  since  the  fall  are  not  in  a  condition  to  receive 
the  transforming  and  saving  power  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible ; 
and  therefore  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  render  the  Word  of  God 
an  effectual  means  of  salvation,  that  it  should  be  attended  by  the 


§  1.]  THE  WORD.  473 

supernatural  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Apostle  says  ex- 
pressly, "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him :  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  (1  Cor.  ii.  14.) 
In  the  preceding  chapter  he  had  said,  that  the  same  gospel  which 
to  the  called  was  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God,  was  to  the  Jews 
a  stumbling-block,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness.  Our  Lord  said 
to  the  Jews  :  "  Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech  ?  even  be- 
cause ye  cannot  hear  my  Word.  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's 
words :  ye  therefore  hear  them  not  because  ye  are  not  of  God." 
(John  viii.  43,  47.)  Everything  that  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the 
state  of  men  since  the  fall  proves  that  until  enlightened  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  they  are  spiritually  blind,  unable  to  discern  the  true 
nature  of  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  incapable  of  re- 
ceiving a  due  impression  from  them. 

Experience  confirms  this  teaching  of  the  Bible.  It  shows  that 
no  mere  moral  power  of  truth  as  presented  objectively  to  the 
mind  is  of  any  avail  to  change  the  hearts  of  men.  There  once 
appeared  on  earth  a  divine  person  clothed  in  our  nature  ;  exhib- 
iting the  perfection  of  moral  excellence  in  the  form  of  a  human 
life  :  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners  ;  humble, 
disinterested,  beneficent,  tender,  patient,  enduring,  and  dispensing 
blessings  on  all  who  approached  him.  Yet  this  person  was  to  the 
men  of  his  generation  without  form  or  comeliness.  He  came  to 
his  own  and  his  o\vn  received  him  not.  They  rejected  him  and 
preferred  a  murderer.  And  in  what  respect  are  we  better  than 
they  ?  How  is  Christ  regarded  by  the  mass  of  the  men  of  this 
generation.  Multitudes  blaspheme  Him.  The  majority  scarcely 
think  of  Him.  He  is  to  them  no  more  than  Socrates  or  Plato. 
And  yet  there  is  in  Him  such  a  revelation  of  the  glory  of  God, 
as  would  constrain  every  human  heart  to  love  and  adore  Him,  had 
not  the  god  of  this  world  blinded  the  eyes  of  those  who  believe 
not.  It  is  vain  therefore  to  talk  of  the  moral  power  of  truth  con- 
verting men. 

There  are  some  who  throw  a  vail  over  this  rationalistic  doc- 
trine, and  delude  themselves  and  others  into  the  belief  that  they 
stand  on  more  Scriptural  ground  than  Rationalists,  because  they 
admit  that  the  Spirit  is  operative  in  the  truth.  Every  theist  be- 
lieves that  God  is  everywhere  present  in  the  world  and  always  sus- 
taining and  cooperating  with  physical  causes  in  the  production  ot 
their  various  effects.  So  the  Spirit  is  in  the  world,  everywhere 
present  and  everywhere  active,  cooperating  with  moral  causes  in 


474  PART   III.     Cii.   XX. —THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

producing  their  legitimate  effects.  There  is  nothing  in  the  opera- 
tion of  physical  causes  transcending  their  legitimate  effects  ;  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  regeneration,  conversion,  and  sanctification 
of  men  which  transcends  the  legitimate  effects  of  moral  truth. 
The  one  series  of  effects  is  just  as  natural,  and  just  as  little  super- 
natural, as  the  other.  It  has  already  been  shown  on  a  previous 
page,^  that  this  is  all  that  the  most  advanced  rationalists  require. 
It  excludes  the  supernatural,  which  is  all  they  demand.  In  the 
effects  produced  by  physical  causes  guided  by  the  providential 
efficiency  of  God,  there  is  nothing  which  exceeds  the  power  of 
those  causes ;  and  in  the  effects  produced  by  the  moral  power  of 
the  truth  under  the  cooperation  of  the  Spirit,  there  is  nothing 
which  exceeds  the  power  of  the  truth.  The  salvation  of  the  soul 
is  as  much  a  natural  process  as  the  gro^vth  of  a  plant.  The  Scrip- 
tures clearly  teach  that  there  is  an  operation  of  the  Sj)irit  on  the 
soul  anterior  to  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  truth,  and  neces- 
sary to  render  that  influence  effective.  A  dead  man  must  be 
restored  to  life,  before  the  objects  of  sense  can  produce  upon  him 
their  normal  effect.  Those  spiritually  dead  must  be  quickened 
by  the  almighty  power  of  God,  before  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
can  produce  their  appropriate  effect.  Those  spiritually  blind 
must  have  their  eyes  opened  before  they  can  discern  the  things 
freely  given,  or  revealed,  to  them  of  God.  This  influence  being 
anterior  to,  cannot  be  through,  the  truth.  Hence  we  find  numer- 
ous prayers  in  every  part  of  the  Scriptures  for  this  antecedent 
work  of  the  Spirit ;  prayers  that  God  would  change  the  hearts, 
open  the  eyes,  and  unstop  the  ears  of  men  ;  or  that  He  would 
give  them  ears  to  hear,  and  eyes  to  see.  The  Spirit  is  every- 
Avliere  represented  as  a  personal  agent,  distributing  his  gifts  to 
every  one  severally  as  He  will.  He  arouses  their  attention,  con- 
trols their  judgments,  and  awakens  their  affections.  He  con- 
vinces them  of  sin,  righteousness,  and  judgment.  He  works  in  the 
people  of  God  both  to  will  and  to  do.  He  teaches,  guides,  com- 
forts, and  strengthens.  His  influence  is  not  confined  to  one  activ- 
ity producing  an  initial  change,  and  then  leaving  the  renewed 
soul  to  the  influences  of  the  truth  and  of  -the  ordinances.  It.  is 
abiding.  It  is  not  however  the  influence  of  a  uniformly  acting 
force  cooperating  with  the  truth  ;  but  that  of  a  person,  acting 
when  and  where  He  pleases  ;  more  at  one  time  than  at  another, 
sometimes  in  one  way  and  sometimes  in  another.  He  is  a  "  Helper  " 
Tvho  can  be  mvoked,  or  who  can  be  gi'ieved  and  resisted.  All  these 

1  See  vol.  ii.  p.  657,  ff. 


1] 


THK   WO UD.  475 


representations  of  the  Scriptures,  which  are  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  purely  rationalistic  doctrine,  as  well  as  with  the  doctrine 
which  either   confounds    the  operations  of   the    Spirit  with   the 
providential  efficiency  of  God,  or  regards  them  as  analogous,  have 
impressed  themselves  on  the  general  consciousness  of  the  Church. 
Every  believer  feels  that  he  stands  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  rela- 
tion which  one  person  sustains  to  another  :  a  person  on  whom  he 
is  dependent  for  all  good  ;  whose  assistance  must  be  sought,  and 
whose  assistance  may  be  granted  or  witlilield  at  pleasure  ;  and 
who  may  come  or  withdraw  either  for  a  season  or  forever.     Such 
has  been  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  all  ages,  as  is  manifest  from 
its  creeds,  its  hymns,  and  its  prayers.    While  all  Christians  admit 
that  God's  providential  efficiency  extends  over  all  his  works,  and 
that  all  good  in  fallen  man  is  due  to  the  presence  and  power  of  his 
Holy  Spirit,  yet  they  have  ever  felt  and  believed,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  divine  activity  in  these  different 
spheres  is  entirely  different.     The  spheres  themselves  are  differ- 
ent ;  the  ends  to  be  accomplished  are  different ;   and  the  mode 
of  operation  is  different.     In  nature  (especially  in  the  external 
world)  God  acts  by  law  ;  his  providential  efficiency  is  a  "  poten- 
tia  ordinata  ;  "  in  grace  it  is  more  a  "  potentia  absoluta,"  untram- 
melled by  law.     It  is  personal  and  sovereign.     He  does  not  act 
continuously  or  in  any  one  way  ;  but  just  as  He  sees  fit.     He 
works  in  us  "both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  (Phil, 
ii.  13.)  As  just  remarked,  therefore,  every  Christian  feels  his  de- 
pendence not  upon  law,  but  on  the  good-will  of  a  person.     Hence 
the  prayers  so  frequent  in  Scripture,  and  so  constantly  on  the 
lips  of  believers,  that  the  Spirit  would  not  cast  us  off  ;  would 
not  give  us  up  ;  would  not  be  grieved  by  our  ingratitude  or  re- 
sistance :  but  that  He  would  come  to  us,  enlighten  us,  purify, 
elevate,  strengthen,  guide,  and  comfort  us  ;  that  He  would  come 
to  our   households,  renew  our   children,  visit  our  churches,  and 
multiply  his  converts  as  the  drops  of  the  morning  dew  ;  and  that 
He  would  everywhere  give  the  Word  of  God  effect. 

This  sovereignty  in  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  is  felt  and  rec- 
ognized by  every  parent,  by  every  pastor,  and  by  every  mission- 
ary. It  is  the  revealed  purpose  of  God  that  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged. "  See  your  calling  brethren,"  says  the  Apostle  ;  not  the 
wise,  the  great,  the  good,  but  the  foolish,  those  who  are  of  no  ac- 
comit,  hath  God  chosen  in  order  "  that  no  flesh  should  glory  in 
his  presence."  (1  Cor.  i.  26-29.)  No  man  is  to  be  allowed  to 
attribute  his  conversion  or  salvation  to  himself,  to  law,  or  to  the 


476  PART  III.     Ch.  XX. —the   MExVXS    of   grace. 

efficiency  of  means.  It  is  in  the  hands  of  God.  It  is  of  Ilira 
that  any  man  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  (1  Cor.  i.  30.)  In  Hke  manner 
He  so  gives  or  withholds  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  that  every 
mmister  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  Apostles  themselves  did,  should 
feel  and  acknowledge  that  his  success  does  not  depend  on  his  offi- 
cial dignity,  or  his  fidelity,  or  his  skill  in  argument,  or  his  power 
of  persuasion,  but  simply  and  solely  on  the  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit,  given  or  withheld  as  He  sees  fit.  Why  was  it  that  so  few 
were  converted  under  the  ministry  of  Christ,  and  so  many  thou- 
sands under  that  of  the  Apostles  ?  Why  is  it  that  a  like  experi- 
ence has  marked  the  whole  history  of  the  Church  ?  The  only 
Scriptural  or  rational  answer  that  can  be  given  to  that  question 
is,  "  Even  so.  Father  :  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  We 
know  indeed  that  the  Spirit's  sovereignty  is  determined  in  its 
action  by  infinitely  wise  and  good  reasons  ;  and  we  know  that 
his  withholding  his  cooperation  is  often  judicial  and  punitive ; 
that  He  abandons  individuals,  churches,  communities,  and  nations 
who  have  sinned  away  their  day  of  grace.  It  is  important  that 
we  should  remember,  that,  in  living  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit,  we  are  absolutely  dependent  on  a  divine  Person,  who 
gives  or  withholds  his  influence  as  He  will ;  that  He  can  be 
grieved  and  offended ;  that  He  must  be  acknowledged,  feared, 
and  obeyed  ;  that  his  presence  and  gifts  must  be  humbly  and 
earnestly  sought,  and  assiduously  cherished,  and  that  to  Him  all 
right  thoughts  and  right  purposes,  all  grace  and  goodness,  all 
strength  and  comfort,  and  all  success  in  winning  souls  to  Christ, 
are  to  be  ascribed. 

The    Office  of  the   Word  as  a  Means  of  Grace. 

Christians  then  do  not  refer  the  saving  and  the  sanctifying 
power  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  moral  power  of  the  truths  which 
they  contain ;  or  to  the  mere  cooperation  of  the  Spirit  in  a  man- 
ner analogous  to  the  way  in  which  God  cooperates  with  all  second 
causes,  but  to  the  power  of  the  Spirit  as  a  divine  Person  acting 
with  and  by  the  truth,  or  without  it,  as  in  his  sovereign  pleasure 
He  sees  fit.  Although  light  cannot  restore  sight  to  the  blind,  or 
heal  the  diseases  of  the  organs  of  sight,  it  is  nevertheless  essential 
to  every  exercise  of  the  power  of  vision.  So  the  Word  is  essen- 
tial to  all  holy  exercises  in  the  human  soul. 

In  every  act  of  vision  there  are  three  essential  conditions  • 
1.  An  object.  2.  Light.  3.  An  eye  in  a  healthful  or  normal 
state.     In  all  ordinary  cases  this  is  all  that  is  necessary.     But 


§  1.]  THE    WORD.  477 

when  the  object  to  be  seen  has  the  attribute  of  beauty,  a  fourth 
condition  is  essential  to  its  proper  apprehension,  namely,  that  the 
observer  have  JBsthetic  discernment  or  taste  natural  or  acquired. 
Two  men  may  view  the  same  work  of  art.  Both  have  the  same 
object  before  them  and  the  same  light  around  them.  Both  see 
alike  all  that  affects  the  organ  of  vision  ;  but  the  one  may  see  a 
beauty  Avhich  the  other  fails  to  perceive  ;  the  same  object  there- 
fore produces  on  them  very  different  effects.  The  one  it  delights, 
elevates,  and  refines  ;  the  other  it  leaves  unmoved  if  it  does  not 
disgust  him.  So  when  our  blessed  Lord  was  upon  earth,  the 
same  person  went  about  among  the  people  ;  the  same  Word 
sounded  in  their  ears  ;  and  the  same  acts  of  power  and  love  were 
performed  in  their  presence.  The  majority  hated,  derided,  and 
finally  crucified  Him.  Others  saw  in  Him  the  glory  of  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God  full  of  grace  and  truth.  These  loved,  adored, 
worshipped,  and  died  for  Him.  Without  the  objective  revelation 
of  the  person,  doctrines,  work,  and  character  of  Christ,  this  in- 
ward experience  of  his  disciples  had  been  impossible.  But  this 
outward  revelation  would  have  been,  and  in  fact  was  to  most  of 
those  concerned,  utterly  in  vain,  without  the  power  of  spiritual 
discernment.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  what  the  office  of  the  Word 
is,  and  what  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  the  work  of  sanctifica- 
tion.  The  Word  presents  the  objects  to  be  seen  and  the  light  by 
which  we  see ;  that  is,  it  contains  the  truths  by  which  the  soul  is 
sanctified,  and  it  conveys  to  the  mind  the  intellectual  knowledge 
of  those  truths.  Both  these  are  essential.  The  work  of  the  Spirit 
is  Avith  the  soul.  That  by  nature  is  spiritually  dead  ;  it  must  be 
quickened.  It  is  blind  ;  its  eyes  must  be  opened.  It  is  hard  ;  it 
must  be  softened.  The  gracious  work  of  the  Spirit  is  to  impart 
life,  to  open  the  eyes,  and  to  soften  the  heart.  When  this  is 
done,  and  in  proportion  to  the  measure  in  which  it  is  done,  the 
.Word  exerts  its  sanctifying  influence  on  the  soul. 

It  is  a  clear  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  fact  of  experience  that 
the  truth  when  spiritually  discerned  has  this  transforming  power. 
Paul  was  full  of  pride,  malignity,  and  contempt  for  Christ  and 
his  Gospel.  When  the  Spirit  opened  his  eyes  to  behold  the  glory 
of  Christ,  he  instantly  became  a  new  man.  The  effect  of  that, 
vision  —  not  the  miraculous  vision  of  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God, 
but  the  spiritual  apprehension  of  his  divine  majesty  and  love — • 
lasted  during  the  Apostle's  life,  and  will  last  to  all  eternity. 
The  same  Apostle,  therefore,  teaches  us  that  it  is  by  beholding 
the  glory  of  Christ  that  we  are  transformed  into  his  image,  from 


478  PART   III.     Ch.   XX. —the   means    OF   GRACE 

glory  to  glory,  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  (2  Cor.  iii.  18.) 
Hence  the  Scriptures  so  constantly  represent  the  heavenly  state, 
as  seeing  God.  It  is  the  beatific  vision  of  the  di\'ine  glory,  in 
all  its  brightness,  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  purifies, 
ennobles,  and  enraptures  the  soul ;  filling  all  its  capacities  of 
knowledge  and  happiness.  It  is  thus  that  we  are  sanctified 
by  the  truth;  it  is  by  the  spiritual  discernment  of  the  things 
of  the  Spirit,  when  He  opens,  or  as  Paul  says,  enlightens 
the  eyes  of  our  understanding.  We  thus  learn  how  we  must 
use  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  experience  their  sanctifying 
power.  We  must  diligently  search  them  that  we  may  know  the 
truths  therein  revealed ;  we  must  have  those  truths  as  much  as 
possible  ever  before  the  mind ;  and  we  must  pray  earnestly  and 
constantly  that  the  Spirit  may  open  our  eyes  that  we  may  see 
wondrous  things  out  of  his  law.  It  matters  httle  to  us  how 
excellent  or  how  powerful  the  truths  of  Scripture  may  be,  if  we 
do  not  know  them.  It  matters  little  how  well  we  may  know 
them,  if  we  do  not  think  of  them.  And  it  matters  little  how 
much  we  think  of  them,  if  we  cannot  see  them ;  and  we  cannot 
see  them  unless  the  Spirit  opens  the  eyes  of  ovir  heart. 

We  see  too  from  this  subject  why  the  Bible  represents  it  as 
the  great  duty  of  the  ministry  to  hold  forth  the  Word  of  life ;. by 
the  manifestation  of  the  truth  to  commend  themselves  to  every 
man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is  all  they  need  do. 
They  must  preach  the  Word  in  season  and  out  of  season,  whether 
men  will  hear,  or  whether  they  will  forbear.  They  know  that 
the  Gospel  which  they  preach  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation, 
and  that  if  it  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost :  in  whom 
the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which 
believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ,  who 
is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine  unto  them.  (2  Cor.  iv.  4.) 
Paul  may  plant  and  Apollos  water,  but  God  only  can  give  the 
increase. 

Besides  this  general  sanctifying  power  of  the  Word  of  God, 
when  spiritually  discerned,  it  is  to  be  further  remarked  that  it  is 
the  means  of  calling  forth  all  holy  thoughts,  feelings,  purposes, 
and  acts.  Even  a  regenerated  soul  without  any  truth  before  it, 
would  be  in  blank  darkness.  It  would  be  in  the  state  of  a 
regenerated  infant ;  or  in  the  state  of  an  unborn  infant  in  rela- 
tion to  the  external  world ;  having  eyes  and  ears,  but  nothing  to 
call  its  faculties  of  sight  and  hearing  into  exercise.  It  is  obvious 
that  we  can  have  no  rational  feelings  of  gratitude,  lore,  adora- 


§  1.]  THE    WORD.  47i> 

tion  and  fear  toward  God,  except  in  view  of  the  truths  revealed 
concerning  Him  in  his  Word.  We  can  have  no  love  or  devotion 
to  Christ,  except  so  far  as  the  manifestation  of  his  character  and 
work  is  accepted  by  us  as  true.  We  can  have  no  faith  except 
as  founded  on  some  revealed  promise  of  God ;  no  resignation  or 
submission  except  in  view  of  the  Avisdom  and  love  of  God  and  of 
his  universal  providence  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures ;  no  joyful 
anticipation  of  future  blessedness  which  is  not  founded  on  what 
the  Gospel  makes  known  of  a  future  state  of  existence.  The 
Bible,  therefore,  is  essential  to  the  conscious  existence  of  the 
divine  life  in  the  soul  and  to  all  its  rational  exercises.  The 
Christian  can  no  more  live  without  the  Bible,  tlian  his  body  can 
live  without  food.  The  Word  of  God  is  milk  and  strong  meat, 
it  is  as  water  to  the  thirsty,  it  is  honey  and  the  honeycomb. 

The  Lutheran  Doctrine. 

This  doctrine  has  already  been  briefly,  and,  perhaps,  suf- 
ficiently discussed  on  a  preceding  page  ;  ^  it  cannot,  however,  be 
properly  overlooked  in  this  connection.  The  Lutherans  agree 
in  words  with  Rationalists  and  Remonstrants,  in  referring  the 
efficiency  of  the  Word  of  God  in  the  work  of  sanctification  to  the 
inherent  power  of  the  truth.  But  Rationalists  attribute  to  it  no 
more  power  than  that  which  belongs  to  all  moral  truth ;  such 
truth  is  from  its  nature  adapted  to  form  the  character  and  influ- 
ence the  conduct  of  rational  creatures,  and  as  the  truths  of  the 
Bible  are  of  the  highest  order  and  importance,  they  are  willing 
to  concede  to  them  a  proportionate  degree  of  power.  The 
Lutherans,  on  the  other  hand,  teach,  —  First,  that  the  power  of 
the  Word  which  is  inherent  and  constant,  and  which  belongs  to 
it  froni  its  very  nature  as  the  Word  of  God,  is  supernatural  and 
divine.  Secondl}^,  that  its  efficiency  is  not  due  to  any  influence 
of  the  Spirit,  accompanying  it  at  some  times  and  not  at  others, 
but  solely  to  its  own  inherent  virtue.  Thirdly,  that  its  diversified 
effects  are  due  not  to  the  Word's  having  more  power  at  one  time 
than  at  another ;  or  to  its  being  attended  Avith  a  greater  or 
less  degree  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  but  to  the  difl^erent  ways  in 
which  it  is  received.  Christ,  it  is  said,  healed  those  who  had 
faith  to  be  healed.  He  frequently  said :  "  According  to  your 
faith  be  it  unto  you,"  or  "  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee."  It  was 
not  because  there  was  more  power  in  the  person  of  Christ  when 
the  woman  touched  his  garment,  than  at  other  times,  tliat  she 

1  See  vol.  ii.  p.  G5G  f. 


480  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  -  THE  MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

was  healed,  but  because  of  her  faith.  Fourthly,  that  the  Spirit 
never  operates  savingly  on  the  minds  of  men,  except  through  and 
in  the  Word.  Luther  in  the  Smalcald  Articles  says :  "  Constanter 
tenendum  est,  Deum  nemini  Spiritum  vel  gratiam  suam  largiri 
nisi  per  verbum  et  cum  verbo  externo  et  priecedente,  ut  ita 
prsemuniamus  nos  adversum  enthusiastas,  i.  e.^  spiritus,  qui  jac- 
titant  se  ante  verbum  et  sine  verbo  Spiritum  habere."  ^  And 
in  the  Larger  Catechism,^  he  says :  "  In  summa,  quicquid  Deus 
in  nobis  facit  et  operatur,  tantum  externis  istius  modi  rebus  et 
constitutiouibus  operari  dignatur."  Luther  went  so  far  as  to 
refer  even  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  to  the  '"  verbum  vocale," 
or  external  word." 

This  divine  power  of  the  Word,  however,  is  not,  as  before 
remarked,  to  be  referred  to  tlie  mere  moral  power  of  the  truth. 
On  this  point  the  Lutheran  theologians  are  perfectly  explicit. 
Thus  Quenstedt^  says:  "Verbum  Dei  non  agit  solum  persua- 
siones  morales,  proponendo  nobis  objectum  amabile ;  sed  vero, 
reali,  divino  et  ineffabili  influxu  potentiae  suse  gratiosge."  This 
influx  of  divine  power,  however,  is  not  something  occasional, 
giving  the  word  a  power  at  one  time  which  it  has  not  at  another. 
It  is  something  inlierent  and  permanent.  Quenstedt  says :  ^ 
'•'•  Verbo  Dei  virtus  divina  non  extrinseeus  in  ipso  usu  demum 
accedit,  sed  ....  in  se  et  per  se,  intrinsice  ex  divina  ordina- 
tione  et  communicatione,  efficacia  et  vi  conversiva  et  regeneratrice 
prajditum  est,  etiam  ante  et  extra  omnem  usum."  And  Hollaz  ^ 
says  it  has  this  power  "  propter  mysticam  verbi  cum  Sphitu  Sancto 
unionem  intimam  et  individuam." 

Professor  Schmid,  of  Erlangen,  in  his  •'  Dogmatik  der  evangel- 
isch-lutherischen  Kirche,"  quotes  from  the  leading  Lutheran  the- 
ologians their  views  on  this  subject.  Hollaz,  for  example,  says 
that  this  "  vis  divina"  is  inseparably  conjoined  with  the  Word  ; 
that  the  Word  of  God  cannot  be  conceived  of  without  the  Spirit ; 
that  if  the  Holy  Spirit  could  be  separated  from  the  Word,  it  would 

1  II.  viii.  3;  Hase,  Libri  Si/mholici,  ISiiJ,  p.  331. 
■■i  IV.  30;  Hase,  p.  540. 

3  See  Smalcald  Articles,  ii.  viii.  10,  11:  "Qiiarc  in  hoc  nobis  est,  constanter  persevc- 
randum,  ([nod  Deus  non  velit  nobiscum  aliter  ai;ci\',  nisi  jht  vocale  verbum  et  sacramenta, 
et  quod,  quidquid  sine  verbo  et  sacramentis  jactatur,  ut  spiritus,  sit  ipse  diabolus.  Nam 
Deus  etiam  Mosi  voluit  apparere  per  rubum  ardentom  et  vocale  vevbuni.  Et  nullus 
propheta,  sive  Elias,  sive  Elisajus,  Spiritum  sine  ducalogo  sive  verbo  vocali  accepit." 
Hase,  p.  333. 

4  Tlieolufjia  DUlactico-Polanica,  I.  iv.  ii.  quxst.  xvi.  ex^^o''?)  4;  edit.  Leipzig,  1715 
p.  248. 

6  Ibid.  I.  IV.  ii.  quicst.  y.\\.funles  svlutionum,  7;  )).  208. 

6  Examen  Theolo<jicum  Acroamaticuvi,  in.  ii.  1.  quivst.  4;  edit.  Leipzig,  17G3,  p.  992. 


§  1.]  THE    WORD.  481 

not  be  the  Word  of  God,  but  the  word  of  man.  ^  Qnenstedt  says 
that  the  action  of  the  Word  and  of  the  Spirit  is  one  and  indi- 
visible. Baier  says  :  ^  "  Nempe  eadeni  ilhi  infinita  virtus,  quaj  es- 
sentiaHter,  per  se  et  independenter  in  Deo  est,  et  per  quam  Deus 
homines  ilhuninat  et  convertit,  verbo  conniiunicata  est :  et  tan- 
quam  verbo  communieata,  divina  tamen,  hie  speetari  debet."  A  dis- 
tinction, says  Quenstedt,  is  to  be  made  between  the  natural  instru- 
ments, such  as  the  staff  of  Moses,  or  rod  of  Aaron,  which  God  uses 
to  produce  supernatural  effects,  and  those,  as  the  Word  and  sacra- 
ments, Avhich  are  "  sua  essentia  supernaturalia Ilia  indigent 

novo  motu  et  elevatione  nova  ad  effectum  novum  ultra  propriam 
suam  et  naturalem  virtutem  producendum  ;  luec  vero  a  prima  in- 
stitutione  et  productione  sufficient!,  hoc  est,  divina  et  summa  vi  ac 
efi&cacia  prredita  sunt,  nee  indigent  nova  et  peculiari  aliqua  eleva- 
tione ultra  efficaciam  ordinariam,  jamdum  ipsis  inditam  ad  produ- 
cendum spiritualem  effectum."^  That  the  Word  is  not  always 
efficacious  is  not  because  it  is  attended  by  greater  power  in  one 
case  than  another,  but  because  of  the  difference  in  the  moral  state 
of  those  to  whom  it  is  presented.  On  this  point  Quenstedt  says, 
"  Quanquam  itaque  effectus  Verbi  divini  prtedicati  nonnunquam 
impediatur,  efficacia  tamen  ipsa,  sen  virtus  intrinseca  a  verbo  tolli 
et  separari  non  potest.  Et  ita  per  accidens  fit  inefficax,  non  poten- 
tiae  defectu,  sed  malitiae  motu,  quo  ejus  operatio  impeditur,  quo 
minus  effectum  suum  assequatur."  *  A  piece  of  iron  glowingX 
with  heat,  if  placed  in  contact  with  anything  easily  combustible,  I 
produces  an  immediate  conflagration.  If  brought  in  contact  with  I 
a  rock,  it  produces  little  sensible  effect.  So  the  Word  of  God  / 
fraught  with  divine  power,  when  presented  to  one  mind  regenV 
erates,  converts,  and  sanctifies,  and  when  presented  to  another 
leaves  it  as  it  was,  or  only  exasperates  the  evil  of  its  nature.  It 
is  true  these  theologians  say  that  the  operation  of  the  Word  is  not 
physical,  as  in  the  case  of  opium,  poison,  or  fire  ;  but  moral,  "  illus- 
trando  mentem,  commovendo  voluntatem,"  etc.  Nevertheless  the 
illustration  holds  as  to  the  main  point.  The  Word  has  an  inherent, 
divine,  and  constant  power.  It  produces  different  effects  accord- 
ing to  the  subjective  state  of  those  on  whom  it  acts.  The  Spirit 
acts  neither  on  them  nor  on  it  more  at  one  time  than  at  another. 

1  Holiaz,  Examtn,  ui.  ii.  1,  4,  odit.  Ildluiiie  et  l^ipsiiu;  ITil,  p.  U87. 

2  Compendium   TIikoLkjUv   /\(.-,7V«C(8,  Prulegy.  ii.  xxxix   d ;  edit.  FrankCort  and   Leipzig 
1739,  p.  106. 

3  Quenstedt,  Tkcdliii/h,  I.  iv.  ii.  (|u;est.  xvi.  e,\8<:<Tis,  7,  iit  supra,  p.  249. 

4  /bid.  qutest.  xvi.  9. 

VOL.    III.  31 


482       PART  m.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

Remarks. 

1.  It  is  obvious  that  this  peculiar  theory  has  no  support  from 
Scripture.  The  Bible  does  indeed  say  that  the  Word  of  God  is 
quick  and  powerful ;  that  it  is  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power 
of  God  ;  and  that  it  convinces,  converts,  and  sanctifies.  But  so 
does  the  Bible  say  that  Christ  gave  his  Apostles  power  to  work 
miracles  ;  and  that  they  went  about  communicating  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  healing  the  sick,  and  raising  the 
dead.  But  the  power  was  not  in  them.  Peter  was  indignant  at 
such  an  imputation.  "  Why  look  ye  so  earnestly  on  us,"  he  said 
to  the  people,  "  as  though  by  our  own  power  or  hohness  we  had 
made  this  man  to  walk  ?  "  If  the  Apostles'  working  miracles  did 
not  prove  that  the  power  was  in  them,  the  effects  produced  by 
the  Word  do  not  prove  that  the  power  is  in  it. 

2.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  constant  representa- 
tions of  the  Scriptures,  which  set  forth  the  Spirit  as  attending  the 
Word  and  giving  it  effect,  sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less  ; 
working  with  and  by  the  truth  as  He  sees  fit.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  command  to  pray  for  the  Spirit.  Men  are  not  ac- 
customed to  pray  that  God  would  give  fire  the  power  to  burn  or 
ice  to  cool.  If  the  Spirit  were  always  in  mystical,  indissoluble 
union  with  the  Word,  giving  it  inherent  divine  power,  there  would 
be  no  propriety  in  praying  for  his  influence  as  the  Apostles  did, 
and  as  the  Church  in  all  ages  has  ever  done,  and  continues  to  do. 

3.  This  theory  cuts  us  off  from  all  intercourse  with  the  Spirit 
and  all  dependence  upon  Him  as  a  personal  voluntary  agent.  He 
never  comes  ;  He  never  goes  ;  He  does  not  act  at  one  time  more 
than  at  another.  He  has  imbued  the  Word  with  divine  power, 
and  sent  it  forth  into  the  world.  There  his  agency  ends.  God 
has  given  opium  its  narcotic  power,  and  arsenic  its  power  to  cor- 
rode the  stomach,  and  left  them  to  men  to  use  or  to  abuse  as  they 
see  fit.  Beyond  giving  them  their  propertier.  He  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  effects -which  they  produce.  So  the  Spirit  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  conviction,  conversion,  or  sanctification  of  the 
people  of  God,  or  with  illuminating,  consoling,  or  guiding  them,  - 
beyond  once  for  all  giving  his  Word  divine  power.  There  it  is  : 
men  may  use  or  neglect  it  as  they  please.  The  Spirit  does  not 
incline  them  to  use  it.  He  does  not  open  their  hearts,  as  He 
opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  to  receive  the  Word.  He  does  not 
enlighten  their  eyes  to  see  wondrous  things  out  of  the  law. 

4.  Lutherans  do  not  attribute  divine  ])ower  to  the  visible  words, 


§  1.]  THE  WORD.  483 

or  to  the  audible  sounds  uttered,  but  to  the  truth  which  these 
conventional  signs  are  the  means  of  communicating  to  the  mind. 
They  admit  that  this  truth,  although  it  has  inherent  in  it  divine 
power,  never  produces  any  supernatural  or  spiritual  effect  unleis 
it  is  properly  used.  They  admit  also  that  this  proper  use  includes 
the  intellectual  apprehension  of  its  meaning,  attention,  and  the 
purpose  to  believe  and  obey.  Yet  they  believe  in  infant  regenera- 
tion. But  if  infants  are  incapable  of  using  the  Word  ;  and  if  the 
Spirit  never  operates  except  in  the  Word  and  by  its  use,  how  is  it 
possible  that  infants  can  be  regenerated.  If,  therefore,  the  Bible 
teaches  that  infants  are  regenerated  and  saved,  it  teaches  that  the 
Spirit  operates  not  only  with  and  by  the  Word,  but  also  without 
it,  when,  how,  and  where  He  sees  fit.  If  Christ  healed  only  those 
who  had  faith  to  be  healed,  how  did  He  heal  infants,  or  raise  the 
dead  ? 

5.  The  theory  in  question  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  in  that  it 
assumes  that  the  reason  why  one  man  is  saved  and  another  not, 
is  simply  that  one  resists  the  supernatural  power  of  the  Word  and 
another  does  not.  Why  the  one  resists,  is  referred  to  his  own  free 
will.  Why  the  other  does  not  resist,  is  referred  not  to  any  spe- 
cial influence,  but  to  his  own  unbiased  will.  Our  Lord,  however, 
teaches  that  those  only  come  to  Him  who  are  given  to  Him  by 
the  Father ;  that  those  come  who  besides  the  outward  teaching  of 
the  Word,  are  inwardly  taught  and  drawn  of  God.  The  Apostle 
teaches  that  salvation  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  or  of  him  that 
runneth,  but  of  God  who  showeth  mercy.  The  Lutheran  doctrine 
banishes,  and  is  intended  to  banish,  all  sovereignty  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  saving  grace,  from "  the  dispensations  of  God.  To  those 
who  believe  that  that  sovereignty  is  indelibly  imj)ressed  on  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  and  on  the  history  of  the  Church  and  of 
the  world,  this  objection  is  of  itself  sufficient.  The  common 
practical  belief  of  Christians,  whatever  their  theories  may  be,  is 
that  they  are  Christians  not  because  they  are  better  than  other 
men  ;  not  because  they  cooperate  with  the  common  and  sufficient 
grace  given  to  all  men  ;  not  because  they  yield  to,  while  others 
resist  the  operation  of  the  divine  Word  ;  but  because  God  in  his 
sovereign  mercy  made  them  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power  :  so 
that  they  are  all  disposed  to  say  from  the  heart,  "  Not  unto  us,  O 
LoKD,  not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  name  give  glory." 

6.  This  Lutheran  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  experience 
of  believers  individually  and  collectively.  On  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, what  fell  upon  the  Apostles  and  the  brethren  assembled  with 


484       PART  in.    Cii.  XX.  — THE  means  of  grace. 

them  ?  It  was  no  "  verbum  vocale ;  "  no  sound  of  words  ;  and  no 
new  external  revelation.  The  Spirit  of  God  Himself,  enlightened 
their  minds  and  enabled  them  to  remember  and  to  understand  all 
that  Christ  had  taught,  and  they  spoke  every  man,  as  the  Spirit 
(not  the  Word)  gave  them  utterance.  Here  was  a  clear  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit's  acting  directly  on  the  minds  of  the  Apostles. 
To  say  that  the  effects  then  exhibited  were  due  to  the  divine 
power  inherent  in  the  words  of  Christ ;  and  that  they  had  resisted 
that  power  up  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  then  yielded  to  its 
influence,  is  an  incredible  hypothesis.  It  will  not  account  for  the 
facts  of  the  case.  Besides,  our  Lord  promised  to  send  the  Spirit 
after  his  ascension.  He  commanded  the  disciples  to  remain  in 
Jerusalem  until  they  were  imbued  with  power  from  on  high.. 
When  the  Spirit  came  they  were  instantly  enlightened,  endowed 
with  plenary  knowledge  of  the  Gospel,  and  with  miraculous  gifts. 
How  could  the  "verbum  vocale"  impart  the  gift  of  tongues,  or 
the  gift  of  healing.  What  according  to  the  Lutheran  theory  is 
meant  by  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  or,  b}^  the  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit  ?  or,  by  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  ?  or,  by  the  demon- 
stration of  the  Spirit  ?  or,  by  the  unction  of  the  Holy  One  which 
teaches  all  things  ?  or,  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  ?  In 
short,  the  whole  Bible,  and  especially  the  evangelical  history  and 
the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  represents  the  Holy  Spirit  not 
as  a  power  imprisoned  in  the  truth,  but  as  a  personal,  voluntary 
agent  acting  with  the  truth  or  without  it,  as  He  pleases.  As  such 
He  has  ever  been  regarded  by  the  Church,  and  has  ever  exhibited 
himself  in  his  dealings  with  the  children  of  God. 

7.  Luther,  glorious  and  lovely  as  he  was  —  and  he  is  certainly 
one  of  the  grandest  and  most  attractive  figures  in  ecclesiastical 
history — was  impulsive  and  apt  to  be  driven  to  extremes.^  The 
enthusiasts  of  his  age  undervalued  the  Scriptures,  pretending  to 
private  revelations,  and  direct  spiritual  impulses,  communicating 
to  them  the  knowledge  of  truths  unrevealed  in  the  Bible,  and  a 
rule  of  action  higher  than  that  of  the  written  Word.  This  doctrine 
was  a  floodgate  through  Avliich  all  manner  of  errors  and  extrava- 
gances poured  forth  among  the  people  and  threatened  the  over-  • 
throw  of  the  Church  and  of  society.  Against  these  enthusiasts  all 
the  Reformers  raised  their  voices,  and  Luther  denounced  them 
with  characteristic  vehemence.     In  opposition  to  their  pretensions 

1  No  one  knows  Luther  who  has  not  read  pretty  faitlifully  the  five  octavo  vohimes  of  his 
letters,  collected  and  edited  by  De  Wette.  These  exhibit  not  only  his  power,  fidelity,  and 
courase,  but  also  his  j^entlcness,  disinterestedne^^s,  and  his  childlike  simplicity',  as  well  aj 
his  joyousness  and  humour. 


§  2.]  THE   SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  NATURE.  435 

he  took  the  ground  that  the  Spirit  never  operated  on  the  minds  of 
men  except  through  the  Word  and  sacraments  ;  and,  as  he  held 
the  conversion  of  sinners  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  miracles,  he  was 
constrained  to  attribute  divine  power  to  the  Word.  He  was  not 
content  to  take  the  ground  which  the  Church  in  general  has  taken, 
that  while  the  Word  and  sacraments  are  the  ordinary  channels  of 
the  Spirit's  influence,  He  has  left  himself  free  to  act  with  or  with- 
out these  or  any  other  means,  and  when  He  makes  new  revela- 
tions to  individuals  they  are  authenticated  to  others  by  signs,  and 
miracles,  and  divers  gifts  ;  and  that  in  all  cases,  however  authen- 
ticated, they  are  to  be  judged  by  the  written  Word  as  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  or  practice ;  so  that  if  an  Apostle  or  an 
angel  from  heaven  should  preach  any  other  gospel  than  that  which 
we  have  received,  he  is  to  be  pronounced  accursed.  (Gal.  i.  8.) 
"  We  are  of  God:  "  said  the  Apostle  John,  "  he  that  knoweth  God 
heareth  us  ;  he  that  is  not  of  God  heareth  not  us.  Hereby  we 
know  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the  spirit  of  error."  (1  John  iv.  6.) 
The  Scriptures  teach  that  not  only  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  other 
spirits  good  and  evil  have  access  to  the  minds  of  men,  and  more 
or  less  effectually  control  their  operations.  Directions,  therefore, 
are  given  in  the  Bible  to  guide  us  in  discriminating  between  the 
true  and  false. 

The  power  of  individual  men,  who  appear  in  special  junctures, 
over  the  faith  and  character  of  coming  generations,  is  something 
portentous.  Of  such  "  world  controllers,"  at  least  in  modern 
times,  there  are  none  to  compare  with  Martin  Luther,  Ignatius 
Loyola,  and  John  Wesley.  Though  so  different  from  each  other, 
each  has  left  his  impress  upon  millions  of  men.  Our  only  security 
from  the  fallible  or  perverting  influence  of  man,  is  in  entire,  un- 
questioning submission  to  the  infallible  Word  of  God. 

§  2.   The  Sacraments.   Their  Nature. 

Usage  of  the  Word  Sacrament. 

1.  In  classical  usage  the  word  "  sacramentum  "  means,  m  gen- 
eral, something  sacred.  In  legal  proceedings  the  money  depos- 
ited by  contending  parties  was  called  "  sacramentum,"  because 
when  forfeited  it  was  applied  to  sacred  purposes.  "  Ea  pecunia, 
quae  in  judicium  venit  in  litibus,  sacramentum  a  sacro."  "  Sac- 
ramentum ses  significat,  quod  poenne  nomine  penditur,  sive  eo  quia 
interrosratur  sive  contenditur."  Then  in  a  secondary  sense  it 
meant  a  judicial  process.     In  military  usage  it  expressed  the  ob- 


4S6         PART   III.      Ch.    XX. —  THE   ME.VN.S    OF   GRACE. 

ligation  of  the  soldier  to  his  leader  or  country ;  then  the  oath  by 
which  he  was  bound ;  and  generally  an  oath  ;  so  that  in  ordinary 
language  "  sacramentum  dicere  "  meant  to  swear.  ^ 

2.  The  ecclesiastical  usage  of  the  word  was  influenced  by  vari- 
ous circumstances.  From  its  etymology  and  signification  it  was 
applied  to  anything  sacred  or  consecrated.  Then  to  anything 
which  had  a  sacred  or  hidden  meaning.  In  this  sense  it  was 
applied  to  all  religious  rites  and  ceremonies.  This  brought  it  into 
connection  with  the  Greek  word  ixvaT-rjpLov,  which  properly  means  a 
secret ;  something  into  the  knowledge  of  which  a  man  must  be 
initiated.  Hence  in  the  Vulgate  "  sacramentum  "  is  used  as 
the  translation  of  fj-varrpLuv  in  Ephesians  i.  9,  iii.  9,  v.  32 ;  Colos- 
sians  i.  27 ;  1  Timothy  iii.  16  ;  Revelation  i.  20,  xvii.  7.  It  was 
therefore  used  in  the  wide  sense  for  any  sign  which  had  a  secret 
import.  Thus  Augustine  says,^  "  Nimis  autem  longum  est,  con 
venienter  disputare  de  varietate  signorum,  quje  cum  ad  res  divinas 
pertinent,  sacramenta  appellantur."  And  again  he  says,^  "  Ista 
fratres  dicuntur  sacramenta,  quia  in  eis  aliud  videtur,  aliud  intelli- 
gitur.  Quod  videtur  sjDeciem  habet  corporalem,  quod  intelligitur, 
fructum  habet  spiritualem."  All  religious  rites  and  ceremonies, 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  anointing  with  oil,  etc.,  were  therefore  called 
sacraments.  Augustine  frequently  calls  the  mystical  or  allegor- 
ical exposition  of  Scripture,  a  sacrament.  Jerome^  says,  "  Sacra- 
menta Dei  sunt  praedicare,  benedicere  ac  confirmare,  communionem 
reddere,  visitare  infirmos,  orare.^  Lombard  says,  "  Sacramentum 
est  sacr^e  rei  signum."  ^ 

The  Theological  Usage  a7id  Definition  of  the  Word. 

3.  It  is  evident  that  the  signification  of  the  word  "  sacrament  " 
is  so  comprehensive  and  its  usage  so  lax,  that  little  aid  can  be  de- 
rived from  either  of  those  sources  in  fixing  definitely  its  meaning 
in  Christian  theology.  Hence  theologians  soon  began  to  frame 
definitions  of  the  word  more  or  less  exact,  derived  from  the  teach- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject.  The  two  simplest 
and  most  generally  accepted  of  such  definitions  are  the  one  by 
Augustine  and  the  other  by  Peter  Lombard.     The  former  says,  7. 

1  Freuncl's  Lateinische  Worterhuch . 

2  Epistola  cxxxviii.  (5);    Worhs,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  18.3G,  vol.  vii.  p.  615,  c. 

8  Sermo  ccl.Kxii.  (10);  Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  1014,  b,  c.  «    Works,  torn.  ix.  p.  59.  (?) 

fi  See  Gerhard,  Loci  Thcolorjici,  xix.  i.  §§  0,  9;  edit.  Tubingen,  1768,  vol.  viii.  pp.  204, 
805. 

6  Lombard,  Mar/ister  Sententiarum,  lib.  iv.  dist.  i.  15.  edit.  (?)  1472. 

T  In  Joannis  Evangelium  Tractatus,  Ixxx.  3;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol 
ai.  2290,  a. 


§  2.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  NATURE.  487 

"  Accedit  verbum  ad  elementum,  et  fit  sacramentum ; "  the  latter,^ 
"  Sacramentum  est  invisibilis  gratiye  visibilis  forma."  These  defi- 
nitions however  are  too  vague. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  only  safe  and  satisfactory  method  of  ar- 
rivino;  at  the  idea  of  a  sacrament,  in  tlie  Christian  sense  of  the 
word,  is  to  take  those  ordinances  which  by  common  consent  are 
admitted  to  be  sacraments,  and  by  analyzing  them  determine 
what  are  their  essential  elements  oi^  characteristics.  We  should 
then  exclude  from  the  category  all  other  ordinances,  human  or 
divine,  in  which  those  characteristics  are  not  found.  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  admitted  to  be  sacraments.  They  are 
(1.)  Ordinances  histituted  by  Christ.  (2.)  They  are  in  their 
nature  significant,  baptism  of  cleansing  ;  the  Lord's  Supper  of 
spiritual  nourishment.  (3.)  They  were  designed  to  be  perpetual. 
(4.)  They  were  appointed  to  signify,  and  to  instruct ;  to  seal, 
and  thus  to  confirm  and  strengthen  ;  and  to  convey  or  apply,  and 
thus  to  sanctify,  those  who  by  faith  receive  them.  On  this  prin- 
ciple the  definition  of  a  sacrament  given  in  the  standards  of  our 
Church  is  founded.  "  A  sacrament,"  it  is  said,  "  is  an  holy  ordi- 
nance instituted  by  Christ ;  wherein,  by  sensible  signs,  Christ 
and  the  benefits  of  the  New  Covenant  are  represented,  sealed, 
and  applied  to  believers."  '^ 

To  the  same  effect  the  other  Reformed  Symbols  speak.  For 
example,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  says  :  "  Sunt  sacramenta 
symbola  mystica,  vel  ritus  sancti,  aut  sacme  actiones,  a  Deo  ipso 
institutaj,  constantes  verbo  suo,  signis,  et  rebus  significatis,  qui- 
bus  in  ecclesia  summa  sua  beneficia,  liomini  exhibita,  retinet  in 
raemoria,  et  subinde  renovat,  quibus  item  promissiones  suas  ob- 
signat,  et  qute  ipse  nobis  interius  priestat,  exterius  repraesentat,  ac 
veluti  oculis  contemplanda  subiicit,  adeoque  fidem  nostram,  Spir- 
itu  Dei  in  cordibus  nostris  operante,  roborat  et  auget :  quibus 
denique  nos  ab  omnibus  aliis  populis  et  religionibus  separat, 
sibique  soli  consecrat  et  obligat,  et  quid  a  nobis  requirat,  sig- 
nificat."3 

The  definition  given  in  the  Geneva  Catechism  is  that  a  sacra 
ment  is  "  externa  divinae  erga  nos  benevolentite  testificatio,  qua3 
visibili  signo  spirituales  gratias  figurat,  ad  obslgnandas  cordibus 
nostris  Dei  promissiones,  quo  earum  Veritas  melius  confirmetur."  ^ 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  says,  that  sacraments  are  '•  sacra  et 

1  Lombard,  ut  supra. 

2  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  quest.  92. 

*  x'x. ;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessiunum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  512. 
4  V.  de  Sacramentis ;  Ibid.  p.  160. 


488  I'ART   III.     Cii.   XX. —THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

in  oculos  incurrentia  signa,  ac  sigilla,  ob  earn  causam  a  Deo  in- 
stituta,  ut  per  ea  nobis  promissionein  Evangelii  magis  declarat  et 
obsignet :  quod  scilicet  non  universis  tantum,  verum  etiara  singulis 
credentibus,  propter  unicum  illud  Christi  sacrificium  in  cruce 
peractum,  gratis  donet  remissionem  peccatorum,  et  vitam  seter- 
nam."  i 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  teach  ^ 
that  "  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  be  not  only  badges  or  tokens 
of  Christian  men's  profession  ;  but  rather  they  be  certain  sure 
"witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of  grace,  and  God's  will  toward  us, 
by  the  which  He  doth  Avork  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only 
quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  Him." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. 

The  Lutheran  definition  of  the  sacraments  agrees  in  all  essential 
points  with  that  of  the  Reformed  churches.  In  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  its  authors  say  :  "  De  usu  sacramentorum  docent, 
quod  sacramenta  instituta  sint,  non  modo  ut  sint  notae  professionis 
inter  homines,  sed  magis  ut  sint  signa  et  testimonia  voluntatis 
Dei  erga  nos,  ad  excitandam  et  confirmandam  fidem  in  his,  qui 
utuntur,  proposita.  Itaque  utendum  est  sacramentis  ita,  ut  fides 
accedat,  quae  credat  promissionibus,  qucB  per  sacramenta  exhiben- 
tur  et  ostenduntur."  ^ 

In  the  Apology  for  that  Confession  it  is  said  :  "  Si  sacramenta 
vocamus  ritus,  qui  habent  mandatum  Dei,  et  quibus  addita  est 
promissio  gratiae,  facile  est  judicare,  qute  sint  proprie  sacramenta. 
Nam  ritus  ab  hominibvis  instituti  non  erunt  hoc  modo  proprie  dicta 
sacramenta.  Non  est  enim  auctoritatis  humanaj,  promittere  gra- 
tiam.  Quare  signa  sine  mandato  Dei  instituta,  non  sunt  certa 
signa  gratiae,  etiamsi  fortasse  rudes  docent,  aut  adnionent  ali- 
quid."  4 

"  Dicimus  igitur  ad  sacramenta  proprie  sic  dicta  duo  potissi- 
mum  requiri,  videlicet  verbum  et  elementum,  juxta  vulgatum  illud 
Aucustini :  '  Accedit  verbum  ad  elementum,  et  fit  sacramentura.' 
Fundamentum  hujus  adsertionis  ex  ipsa  natuva  et  fine  sacramen- 
torum pendet,  cum  enim  sacramenta  id,  quid  in  verbo  evangelii - 
pncdicatur,  externo  elemento  vestitum  sensibus  iugerere  debeant, 
ex  eo  sponte  sequitur,  quod  nee  j^erbuni_  sine  elemento,  nee  elemen- 
tum sine  verbo  constituat  sacramentum.  Per  verbum  intelligitur 
prime  mandatum  atque  institutio  divina,  per  quam  elementum 

1  Ixvi. ;  Niemeyer,  p.  444.  2  Art.  xxv. 

8  I.  xiii.  1,  2;  Hase,  Leipzig,  1846,  p.  13.  *  vii.  3;  Hase,  p.  200. 


§  2.]  THE   SACRAMENTS      TIIEIR   NATURE.  48'J 

....  separatur  ab  usu  communi,  et  destinatur  usui  sacramen- 
tali ;  deinde  promissio  atque  ea  quidem  evaiigelio  propria,  per 
sacramentum  adplicanda  et  obsignanda.  Per  elementum  non 
quodvis,  sed  certiim  et  verbo  institutionis  expressum  accipitur."  ^ 
In  all  this  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans  are  agreed.  The 
differences  between  them  in  relation  to  the  sacraments  do  not 
concern  their  nature. 

Romish  Doctrine. 

The  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject  is 
that  the  sacraments  contain  the  grace  whicli  they  signify,  and  that 
such  grace  is  conveyed  "  ex_opere  opp,i:n,to."  That  is,  they  have 
a  real  inherent  and  objective  virtue,  which  renders  them  effectual 
in  communicating  saving  benefits  to  those  who  receive  them.  In 
a  certain  sense  these  words  may  be  used  to  express  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  ;  but  that  doctrine  differs  from  the  Romanist  doctrine,  as 
will  appear  when  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  comes  to  be  con- 
sidered. The  language  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  subject 
is  :  "  Si  quis  dixerit  sacramenta  novae  legis  non  continere  gratiam, 
quam  significant ;  aut  gratiam  ipsam  non  ponentibus  obicem  non 
conferre ;  quasi  signa  tantum  externa  sint  acceptas  per  fidem 
gratioe,  vel  justititB,  et  notse  qusedam  Christianse  professionis,  qui- 
bus  apud  homines  cliscernuntur  fideles  ab  infidelibus  ;  anathema 

sit."  2 

The  Roman  Catechism  defines  a  sacrament  "  Rem  esse  sensi 
bus  subjectam,  quae  ex  Dei  institutione  sanctitatis  et  justitias  turn 
significandn3,  tum  efficiendse  vim  habet."  ^  As  the  task  devolved 
on  the  Council  of  Trent  was  to  present  and  harmonize  the  doc- 
trines elaborated  by  the  Schoolmen  in  opposition  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformers,  the  definitions  and  explanations  given  by  the 
writers  of  the  Middle  Ages  throw  as  much  light  on  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  as  the  expositions  of  the  later  theologians  of  the 
Latin  Church.  On  this  point  Thomas  Aquinas  says  :  "  Oportet, 
quod  virtus  salutifera  a  divinitate  Christi  per  ejus  humanitatem 

in  ipsa  sacramenta  derivetur Sacramenta  ecclesina  speciali- 

ter  habent  virtutem  ex  passione  Christi,  cujus  virtus  quodammodo 
nobis  copulatur  per  susceptionem  sacramentorum."  ^  Again : 
"  Ponendo  quod  sacramentum  est  instrumentalis  causa  gratis, 
necesse  est  simul  ponere,  quod  in  sacramento  sit  qu»dam  virtus 

1  Gerliard,  Loci  Theologid,  xix.  2.  §  11;  edit.  Tubingen,  1768,  vol.  viii.  p.  207. 

2  Sess.  VII.  De  Sncramentis  in  genere,  canon  6;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  39. 
8  II.  i.  qusest.  6  (x.  11);  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  241. 

*  Summa,  iii.  Ixii.  5 ;  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  129,  b,  of  fourth  set. 


490  PART  III.     Cii.   XX. —  THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

instrumentalis  ad  inducendura  sacramentalem  effectiim Si- 
cut  virtus  instrumentalis  acquiritur  instrumento,  ex  hoc  ipso  quod 
movetur  ab  agente  principali,  ita  et  sacramentum  consequitur 
spiritualem  virtutem  ex  benedictione  Christi  et  applicatione  minis- 
tri  ad  usum  sacramenti."  Thus  Thomas's  own  opinion  was  adopted 
by  the  Council  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Scotists  to  wliich  Thomas 
refers,  in  the  same  connection  :  "  Illi  qui  ponunt  quod  sacramenta 
non  causant  gratiam,  nisi  per  quandam  concomitantiam  ponunt 
quod  in  sacramento  non  sit  aliqua  virtus,  quae  operetur  ad  sacra- 
menti effectum,  est  tamen  virtus  divina  sacramento  assistens,  quae 
sacramentalem  eft'ectum  operatur."  ^  This  is  very  nearly  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  upon  the  subject.  Bellarmin's 
illustration  of  the  point  in  hand  is  that  as  fire  is  the  cause  of 
combustion  when  brought  into  contact  with  proper  materials,  so 
the  sacraments  produce  their  effect  by  their  own  inherent  virtue. 
"  Exemplum,"  he  says,  "  esse  potest  in  re  naturali.  Si  ad  ligna 
comburenda,  primum  exsiccarentur  ligna,  deinde  excuteretur  ex 
silice,  tum  applicaretur  ignis  ligno,  et  sic  tandem  fieret  combustio  ; 
nemo  diceret,  causam  immediatam  combustionis  esse  siccitatem 
aut  excussionem  ignis  ex  silice  aut  applicationem  ignis  ad  ligna, 
sed  solum  ignem,  ut  causam  primariam,  et  solum  calorem  seu 
calef  action  em,  ut  causam  instrumentalem."  ^ 

"  Jam  vero  sacramenta  gratiam,  quam  significant,  continere, 
eamque  conferre  virtute  sibi  insita,  seu  ex  opere  operato,  Scrip- 
turae,  patres,  constansque  Ecclesi^e  sensus  traditionalis  luculentis- 
sime  docent."  ^  According  to  Romanists,  therefore,  a  sacrament 
is  a  divine  ordinance  which  has  the  inherent  or  intrinsic  power  of 
conferring  the  grace  which  it  signifies. 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  it  was  the  tendency  of  the 
Remonstrants  to  eliminate,  as  far  as  possible,  the  supernatural 
element  from  Christianity.  They  therefore  regarded  the  sac- 
raments not  properly  as  means  of  grace,  but  as  significant  rites 
intended  to  bring  the  truth  vividly  before  the  mind,  which  truth 
exerted  its  moral  influence  on  the  heart,  "  Sacramenta  cum  dicr- 
mus,  externas  ecclesire  ceremonias  seu  ritus  illos  sacros  ac  solennes 
intelligimus,  quibus  veluti  foederalibus  signis  ac  sigillis  visibili- 
bus.  D^us  gratiosa  beneficia  sua,  in  foedere  praesertim  evangehco 

1  Aquinas,  ut  supra,  Ixii.  4;  p.  129,  a. 

2  Bellarmin,  De  Sacramentts,u.  i.;  Disputationes,  Paris,  1G08,  vol.  iii.  p.  109,  a. 

8  Joannes  Perrone,  Prceltctiones  Theologkae,  De  Sacramtntis  in  genere,  u.  i.  39;  edit, 
Paris,  1861.  vol.  ii.  d.  221,  a. 


§  2.]  tup:  sacramp:nts.   their  nature.  491 

promissa,  non  modo  nobis  repmesentat  et  adumbrat,  sed  et  certc 
modo  exhibet  atque  obsignat :  nosqiie  vicissim  palam  publiceque 
declaramus  ac  testamur,  nos  promissiones  omnes  divinas  vera, 
firma  atque  obsequiosa  fide  amplecti,  et  beneiicia  ipsius  jugi  et 
grata  semper  memoria  celebrare  velle."  ^ 

"  Restat,  ut  dicamus,  Deum  gratiam  suamper  sacramenta  nobis 
exhibere,  non  eam  actu  per  ilia  conferendo  ;  sed  per  ilia  tanquam 
signa  clara  ac  evidentia  eam  repraesentando  et  ob  oculos  ponendo 
non  eminus  aut  sub  figuris  quibusdam  tanquam  multo  post  fu- 
turam,  sed  tanquam  prsesentem :  ut  ita  in  signis  istis  tanquam  in 
speculo  quodam,  exliibitionem  illam  gratise,  quam  Deus  nobis  con- 
cessit, quasi  conspiciamus.  Estque  hsec  efficacia  nulla  alia  quam 
objectiva,  quae  requirit  facultatem  cognitivam  rite  dispositam, 
ut  appreliendere  possit  illud,  quod  signum  objective  menti  offert. 
Hinc  videmus,  quomodo  sacramenta  in  nobis  operentur,  nimirum 
tanquam  signa  repraesentantia  menti  nostrae  rem  cujus  signa  sunt. 
Neque  alia  in  illis  quaeri  debet  efficacia."  ^ 

Zwingle  alone  of  the  Reformers  seems  inclined  to  this  view  of 
the  sacraments:  "Sunt  ....  sacramenta,"  he  says,  "signa  vel 
ceremoniae,  pace  tamen  omnium  dicam,  sive  neotericorum  sive 
veterum,  quibus  se  homo  Ecclesiae  probat  aut  candidatum  aut 
militem  esse  Christi,  redduntque  Ecclesiam  totam  potius  certi- 
orem  de  tua  fide  quam  te.  Si  enim  fides  tua  non  aliter  fuerit  ab- 
soluta,  quam  ut  signo  ceremoniali  egeat,  fides  non  est :  fides  enim 
est,  qua  nitimur  misericordiae  Dei  inconcusse,  firmiter  et  indis- 
tracte,  ut  multis  locis  Paulus  habet."  ^  Elsewhere  he  says :  "  Credo, 
imo  scio  omnia  sacramenta,  tam  abesse  ut  gratiam  conferant,  ut 

ne  adferant  quidem  aut  dispensent Dux  autem  vel  vehic- 

ulum  Spiritui  non  est  necessarium,  ipse  enim  est  virtus  et  latio  qua 
cuncta  feruntur,  non  qui  ferri  opus  habeat :  neque  id  unquam  leg- 
imus  in  scripturis  sacris,  quod  sensibilia,  qualia  sacramenta  sunt, 
certo  secum  ferrent  Spiritum,  sed  si  sensibilia  unquam  lata  sunt 
cum  Spiritu,  jam  Spiritus  fuit  qui  tulit,  non  sensibilia.  Sic  cum 
ventus  vehemens  ferretur,  simul  adferebantur  linguae  venti  vir- 
tute,  non  ferebatur  ventus  virtute  linguarum."^  It  is  obvious 
that  all  that  Zmngle  here  says  of  the  sacraments,  might  be  said 
of  the  Word  of  God ;  and,  therefore,  if  he  proves  anything  he 

1  Confessio  Remonstrantium,  xxiii.  1;  Episcopii  Opera,  edit.  Rotterdam,  16G5,  vol.  ii.  p. 
92,  a,  of  second  set. 

2  Limborch,  Tlieologia  Christiana,  v.  Ixvi.  31,  32;  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  p.  606,  b. 
8  De  Vera  et  Falsa  Religione,  Worlcs,  edit.  Schuler  and  Schultess,  Turici,  1832,  vol.  iii. 

p.  231. 

*  Ad  Carolum  Rom.  Imperatorem,  Fidei  Huldrychi  Zwinglii  Ratio,  §  7;  Niemeyer'ft 
Collectio  Confessionum,  p.  24. 


492  PART  III.     Cii.   XX. —  THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

proves  that  the  sacraments  are  not  means  of  grace ;  he  proves 
the  same  concerning  the  Word,  to  which  the  Scriptures  attribute 
such  an  important  agency  in  the  sanctification  and  salvation  of 
men. 

§  3,  Number  of  the  Sacraments. 

If  the  word  sacrament  be  taken  in  the  wide  sense  in  which  it 
was  used  in  the  early  Church  for  any  significant  religious  rite,  it 
is  obvious  that  no  definite  limit  can  be  set  to  their  number.  If 
the  word  be  confined  to  such  divine  ordinances  as  answer  the 
conditions  which  characterize  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
then  it  is  evident  that  they  are  the  only  sacraments  under 
the  Christian  dispensation ;  and  such  is  the  view  taken  by  all 
Protestants.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Apology  for  the  Augsburg 
Confession  it  is  said :  "  Vere  sunt  sacramenta,  baptismus,  Coena 
Domini,  absolutio,  quae  est  sacramentum  poenitentiae.  Nam  hi 
ritus  habent  mandatum  Dei  et  promissionem  gratia,  quae  est  pro- 
pria Novi  Testamenti."  The  last  was  soon  dropped  out  of  the 
list  of  sacraments,  although  the  Lutherans  retained  confession  as 
a  distinct  Church  institution.  The  confession  however  was  to  be 
general,  an  enumeration  of  sins  not  being  required,  and  the 
absolution  which  followed  was  simply  declarative,  and  not  ju- 
dicial, as  among  the  Romanists.  The  Reformed  symbols  re- 
quired private  confession  to  be  made  to  God,  and  general  con- 
fession in  the  congregation  of  the  people ;  and  recommended 
in  extraordinary  cases,  where  the  conscience  is  burdened  or 
the  mind  perplexed,  private  confession  to  the  pastor  or  spiritual 
adviser. 

The  Romanists  have  seven  sacraments,  adding  to  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  matrimony,  orders,  penance,  confirmation,  and 
extreme  unction.  Matrimony,  however,  although  a  divine  insti- 
tution, was  not  ordained  for  signifying,  sealing,  and  applying 
to  believers  the  benefits  of  redemption,  and  therefore,  is  not  a 
sacrament.  The  same  may  be  said  of  orders.  And  as  to  con- 
firmation, penance,  and  extreme  unction,  in  the  sense  in  which 
Romanists  use  those  terms,  they  are  not  divine  institutions  at  alh 

■  Confirmation. 

Confirmation  indeed,  or  a  service  attending  the  introduction  of 
those  baptized  in  infancy,  into  full  communion  in  the  Church, 
was  early  instituted  and  long  continued  among  Protestants  as 
well  as  among  Romanists.     Those  who  had   been  baptized  in 


§3.]  THE   SACRAiAIENTS.      [HEIR   NUMBER.  493 

infancy,  had  their  standing  in  tlie  Church  on  the  ground  of  the 
profession  of  faitli  and  the  engagements  made  in  their  name,  by 
their  parents  or  sponsors.  When  they  came  to  years  of  discre- 
tion, they  were  examined  as  to  their  knowledge  and  conduct, 
and  if  foiaid  competently  instructed  and  free  from  scandal,  they 
assumed  the  obligation  of  their  baptismal  vows  upon  themselves, 
and  their  church  membership  was  confirmed.  In  all  this,  how- 
ever, there  was  notliing  of  a  sacramental  character. 

This  simple  service  the  Romanists  have  exalted  into  a  sacra- 
ment. The  "  material,"  they  say,  is  the  anointing  mth  oil,  or 
the  imposition  of  hands ;  or  as  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Bellarmin 
say,  the  two  united.  Perrone  makes  the  anointing  the  essential 
thing.  The  gift  or  grace  conveyed,  "  ex  opere  operato,"  is  that 
supernatural  mfluence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  enables  the 
recipient  to  be  faithful  to  his  baptismal  vows.  The  administrator 
must  be  a  prelate,  as  prelates  only  are  the  official  successors  of 
the  Apostles,  and,  therefore,  they  only  have  the  power  of  con- 
veying the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  which  was 
one  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  apostleship. 

Penance. 

Romanists  distinguish  between  "  poenitentia,"  repentance  or 
penitence,  as  a  virtue  and  as  a  sacrament.  As  a  virtue  it  consists 
in  .sorrow  for  sin,  a  determination  to  forsake  it,  and  a  purpose 
"  ad  sui  vindictam  in  compensationem  injuria  Deo  per  peccatum 
illatae ; "  i.  e.,  a  purpose  to  make  satisfaction  to  God.  As  a 
sacrament  it  is  an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  committed  after  baptism,  through  the  absolution  of  a 
priest  having  jurisdiction.  The  matter  of  the  sacrament  is  the 
act  of  the  penitent  including  contrition,  confession,  and  satisfac- 
tion. The  form  is  the  act  of  absolution  on  the  part  of  the  priest. 
By  contrition  is  meant  sorrow,  or  remorse.  It  is  not  necessary 
that  this  contrition  should  be  anything  more  than  a  natural,  as 
distinguished  from  a  gracious,  exercise  or  state  of  mind ;  or  as 
the  Romanists  express  it,  it  is  not  necessary  that  contrition 
should  be  "  caritate  perfecta."  The  confession  included  in  this 
assumed  sacrament,  must  be  auricular ;  it  must  include  all  mortal 
sins ;  a  sin  not  confessed  is  not  forgiven.  This  confession  is 
declared  by  the  Council  of  Trent  to  be  necessary  to  salvation. 
"  Si  quis  negaverit,  conf essionem  sacramentalem  vel  :*  ustituiam, 
vel  ad  salutem  necessarian!  esse  jure  divino ;  aut  dixerit,  mo- 
dum  secreti  confitendi  soli  sacerdoti,  quem  Ecclesia  catholica  ab 


494  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

initio  semper  observavit,  et  observat,  alienum  esse  ab  institu- 
tione  et  mandato  Christi,  et  inventum  esse  liumanum ;  anathema 
sit."  ^  In  sin  there  is  both  a  "  reatus  culpge  "  and  a  "  reatus 
poense."  The  former,  together  with  the  penalty  of  eternal  death, 
is  removed  by  absolution ;  but  "  reatus  pcenae  "  as  to  temporal 
punishment,  to  be  endured  either  in  this  life  or  in  purgatory, 
remains  or  may  remain.  Hence  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for 
sin  in  the  sense  above  stated.  The  absolution  granted  by  the 
priest,  is  not  merely  declaratory,  but  judicial  and  effective.  On 
this  point  the  Romish  Church  teaches  "  1°  Christum  delere  pec- 
cata  sacerdotum  ministerio ;  2°  sacerdotes  sedere  judices  in  trib- 
unaU  poenitentioe  ;  3°  illorum  sententiam  ratam  in  coelis  esse ; 
4°  sacerdotes  hac  potestate  proestare  angelis  et  archangelis  ipsis."  ^ 
This  doctrine  that  no  real  sin,  committed  after  baptism,  can  be 
forgiven  unless  confessed  to  a  priest ;  that  the  priest  has  the 
power  to  remit  or  retain  ;  that  he  carries  at  his  girdle  the  keys 
not  only  of  the  visible  Church  on  earth,  but  also  of  heaven  and 
hell ;  and  that  he  opens  and  no  man  shuts,  and  shuts  and  no 
man  opens,  is  one  of  the  strongest  links  of  the  chain  by  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  leads  captive  the  souls  of  men.  No  wonder 
that  she  says  that  the  power  of  a  priest  is  above  that  even  of 
angels  and  archangels. 

Orders. 

Orders  or  ordination  is  made  a  sacrament,  because  instituted  or 
commanded  by  Christ,  and  because  therein  the  supernatural  power 
of  consecrating  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  and  of  forgiving  sin 
is  conferred.  It  is  thus  defined :  "  Oi-do  sacer  et  sacramentum 
divinitus  institutum,  quo  tribuitur  potestas  consecrandi  corpus  et 
sanguinem  Domini,  nee  non  remittendi  et  retinendi  peccata." 
On  this  subject  the  Council  of  Trent  says  :  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  per 
sacram  ordinationem  non  dari  Spiritum  Sanctum,  ac  proinde 
frustra  episcopos  dicere :  Accipe  Sj)iritum  Sanctum ;  aut  per 
earn  non  imjjrimi  cliaracterem  ;•  vel  eum,  qui  sacerdos  semel 
fuit,  laicum  rursus  fieri  posse;  anathema  sit."^  The  right  and 
power  to  ordain  belong  exclusively  to  prelates,  for  they  alone 
possess  the  apostolical  prerogative  of  communicating  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  Ilie  Apostles,  howevoi-,  had 
only  the  power  of  communicating  miraculous  gifts.     They  nei- 

1  Sess.  xiv.  canon  6;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  G8. 

2  Perrone,  Pi-celectiones  Tlieolor/icai,  De  Pcenitentin,  v.  i.  155;  edit.  Paris,  18G1,  vol.  U 
p.  351,  a. 

8  Sess.  xxiii.  canon  4;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  88. 


i 


§  3.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   NUMBER.  495 

ther  claimed  nor  pretended  to  exercise  the  power  of  confer- 
ring the  sanctifying  or  saving  influences  of  the  Spirit.  As  the 
Church  of  Rome  chxims  for  its  clergy  a  power  far  above  that  of 
angels  or  archangels,  so  it  claims  for  its  bishops  powers  far  tran- 
scending those  of  the  Apostles. 

Matrimony. 

Matrimony  is  declared  to  be  a  sacrament  because,  although 
not  instituted  by  Christ,  it  was  made  by  Him  the  symbol  of  the 
mystical  union  between  the  Church  and  its  divine  head ;  and  be- 
cause by  its  due  celebration  divine  grace  is  conferred  upon  the 
contracting  parties.  It  is  thus  defined :  "  Sacramentum  novae 
legis,  quo  significatur  conjunctio  Christi  cum  Ecclesia,  et  gratia 
confer tur  ad  sanctificandam  viri  et  mulieris  legitimam  conjunc- 
tionem,  ad  uniendos  arctius  conjugum  animos,  atque  ad  prolem 
pie  sancteque  in  virtutis  ofiiciis  et  fide  Christiana  instituendam."^ 

Extreme  Unction. 

This  is  defined  to  be  a  sacrament  wherein  by  the  anointing 
with  oil  (per  unctionem  olei  benedicti)  and  prayer  in  the  pre- 
scribed form,  by  the  ministration  of  a  priest,  grace  is  conferred  to 
the  baptized  dangerously  ill,  whereby  sins  are  remitted  and  the 
strength  of  the  soul  is  increased.  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  sacram  in- 
firmorum  unctionem  non  conferre  gratiam,  nee  remittere  peccata, 
nee  alleviare  inflrmos ;  sed  jam  cessasse,  quasi  olim  tantum 
fuerit  gratia  curationum ;  anathema  sit."  "  Si  quis  dixerit, 
presbyteros  Ecclesise,  quos  B.  Jacobus  adducendos  esse  infirmum 
inunguendum  hortatm%  non  esse  sacerdotes  ab  Episcopo  ordinatos, 
sed  getate  seniores,  in  quavis  communitate  ;  ob  idque  proprium 
extremae  unctionis  ministrum  non  esse  solum  sacerdotem  ;  anath- 
ema sit."  2 

Reasons  for  fixing  the  Number  of  the  Sacraments  at  Seven. 

It  is  a  work  of  supererogation  for  Romanists  to  assign  any 
reason  for  making  the  number  of  the  sacraments  seven,  and 
neither  more  nor  less,  other  than  the  decision  of  the  Church.  If 
the  Church  be  infallible  her  judgment  on  the  question  is  deci- 
sive ;  if  it  be  not  infallible  no  other  reason  is  of  any  avail.  They 
admit  that  there  is  no  authority  from  Scripture  on  this  point, 

1  Perrono,  ut  svjira,  De  Mntrhnonio,  1.  vol.  ii.  p.  407. 

2  Cone.  Trident,  sess.  xiv.  "  De  sacramento  extremte  unctionis,"  can.  2,  4;  Streittvolf, 
vol.  i.  pp.  70,  71. 


496  PART   III.     Cu.    XX.- Till-:   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

and  on  no  subject  in  dispute  between  them  and  Protestants,  can 
appeal  be  made  with  less  show  of  reason  to  the  testimony  of  tra- 
dition. Romish  theologians,  therefore,  while  they  claim  com- 
mon consent  in  support  of  their  doctrine  on  this  subject,  avail 
themselves  of  all  the  collateral  aid  they  can  command.  Thomas 
Aquinas  says  that  there  is  an  analogy  between  the  natural  and 
spiritual  life  of  man.  He  is  born ;  he  is  strengthened ;  he  is 
nourished  ;  he  needs  means  of  recovery  from  illness  ;  he  needs  to 
propagate  his  race ;  to  live  under  the  guidance  of  legitimate  au- 
thority ;  and  to  be  jjrepared  for  his  departure  from  this  world. 
The  sacraments  provide  for  all  these  necessities  of  his  spiritual 
life.  He  is  born  in  baptism ;  strengthened  by  confirmation ; 
nourished  by  the  Lord's  Supper ;  recovered  from  spiritual  illness 
by  penance ;  the  Church  is  continued  by  holy  matrimony ;  the 
sacrament  of  orders  provides  for  the  Christian  a  supernaturally 
endowed  guide ;  and  extreme  unction  prepares  him  for  death. 
Thus  through  the  seven  sacraments  all  his  spiritual  wants  are 
supplied. 

Then  again  as  there  are  seven  cardinal  virtues,  there  should  be 
seven  sacraments.  Besides  seven  is  a  sacred  number  :  there  are 
seven  days  in  the  week ;  every  seventh  year  Avas  Sabbatical  ; 
and  there  were  seven  golden  candlesticks,  and  seven  stars  in  the 
right  hand  of  Christ.  It  is  not  wonderful  therefore  that  there 
should  be  seven  sacraments.  It  is  obvious  that  all  this  amounts 
to  nothing.  The  two  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  for  the 
definite  purpose  of  "  signifying,  sealing,  and  applying  to  believ- 
ers," the  benefits  of  redemption,  stand  alone  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. No  other  ordinance  has  the  same  characteristics  or  the 
same  design.  Admitting,  therefore,  that  the  Fathers  and  the 
Church  were  unanimous  in  calling  any  number  of  other  sacred 
institutions  sacraments,  that  would  not  prove  tliat  the}'  belong  to 
the  same  category  as  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  is,  however,  notorious  that  no  such  general  consent  can  be 
pleaded  in  support  of  tlie  seven  sacraments  of  the  Romanists. 
The  simple  facts  on  this  subject  are,  —  (1.)  As  already  re- 
marked, in  the  early  Church  every  sacred  rite  was  called  a  sacra- _ 
ment.  Then  their  number  was  indeiinite.  (2.)  Tlie  preeminence 
of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  over  all  other  sacred  rites  being 
recognized,  they  were  called,  as  by  Augustine,  the  chief  sacra- 
ments. (3.)  When  attention  was  directed  to  the  fact  that  some- 
thing is  true  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  true  cf 
no  other  sacred  ordinances  or  rites,  that  they,  and  they  only,  of 


§3  J  THE    SACUA.MEXTS.     Til  EIll   NUMBER.  lOT 

external  ceremonies  were  appointed  to  be  "  means  of  grace,"  then 
tliey  were  declared  in  this  light  to  be  the  only  Christian  sacra- 
ments. Justin  Martyr,  ^  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,^  and  Augustine,^ 
so  speak  of  them.^  (4.)  As  a  ritualistic  spirit  increased  m  the 
Church,  first  one  and  then  another  rite  was  assumed  to  be  a 
"  means  of  grace,"  not  always,  however,  the  same  rites,  and  thus 
the  number  of  sacraments  was  increased.  (5.)  For  centuries,  how- 
ever, no  definite  number  was  admitted  by  anything  like  general 
consent.  Some  made  the  number  three ;  the  Pseudo  Dionysius 
in  the  sixth  century  made  six.  Peter  Damiani,  the  friend  of 
Gregory  VII.,  made  twelve.  "  Ratherius,  Bishop  of  Verona 
(t  974),  Fulbevt,  Bishop  of  Chartres  (f  1028),  Bruno,  Bishop 
of  Wurzburg  (f  1045),  Rupert,  Abbot  of  Deutz  (f  1135),  ad- 
mitted only  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  others,  as  Theo- 
dulf.  Bishop  of  Orleans  (|  821),  Agobard,  Bishop  of  Lyons 
(t  840),  Lanfranc,  Bishop  of  Canterbury  (f  1089),  Hildebert, 
Bishop  of  Tours  (f  1134),  Hugo,  of  St.  Victor  (f  1141),  call 
them  '  duo  sanctse  ecclesite  sacramenta.'  "  ^  (6.)  It  is  certain, 
says  the  writer  just  quoted,  that  Peter  Lombard  (f  1164)  is 
the  first  who  enumerated  the  seven  sacraments  as  held  by  the 
Romanists.  He  gives  no  reason  for  fixing  on  the  number  seven  ; 
but  that  which  was  already  on  hand  in  the  traditional  sanctity, 
attributed  to  that  number.  It  was  regarded  as  the  symbol  of 
universality  and  perfection.  This  was  sufficient  for  deciding  on 
an  arbitrary  number.  What  has  been  said  is  enough  to  show 
that  Romanists  have  not  even  any  plausible  ground  for  their 
appeal  to  common  consent  in  support  of  their  doctrine  on  this 
subject.  Such  appeal  on  their  theory  is  unnecessary.  If  the 
Church  be  infallible,  and  if  the  Church  testifies  that  Christ  or- 
dained matrimony,  extreme  unction,  etc.,  to  be  sacraments  ;  that 
testimony  is  decisive.  If,  however,  the  Church,  in  the  papal 
sense  of  the  word,  be  the  very  reverse  of  infallible,  then  its  testi- 
mony, so  far  as  the  faith  of  Christians  is  concerned,  amounts 
to  nothing. 

1  Apologia  I  [ii.]  AdAntoniniim,  Plum,  65,  66 ;  Wm-ks,  edit.  Commeliiius,  Heidelberg,  1593, 
p.  76. 

2  Catechesis  Mystagagicoe  Qidnque,  Schram,  Analysis  Patrum,  Augsburg,  1789,  vol.  x 
pp.  250-268. 

3  Enarratio  in  Psalmimi  ciii.  14;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1836,  vol.  iv.  p.  1626,  d. 
*  Perrone  in  his  Prcelectiones  Theologiae,  De  Sacramentis  in  genere,  i.  14;  edit.  Paris, 

1861,  vol.  ii.  p  217;  refers  to  these  and  tries  to  explain  the  facts  away. 

5  Herzog's  Jwal-EnajklopikUe,  Art.  "  Sacramente,"  vol.  xiii.,  p.  241.  The  writer  of  the 
elaborate  article  in  Herzog  refers  to  the  thorough  investigation  of  this  question  in  the  Dis- 
sertation by  G.  L.  Ilalin,  entitled,  Boctrinm  Rom.  de  numero  Sacramentorum  septenario 
rationes  hist07'ic<B,YTiitis\.  1859. 

VOL.  ui.  32 


498         PART   III.     Cii.   XX. -THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

§  4.   The  Efficacy  of  the  Sacraments. 
Zwinglian  and  Remonstrant  Doctrine. 

According  to  tlie  doctrine  of  Zwingle  afterwards  adopted  by  the 
Remonstrants,  the  sacraments  are  not  properly  "  means  of  grace." 
They  were  not  ordained  to  signify,  seal,  and  apply  to  believers 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  They  were  indeed  intended 
to  be  significant  emblems  of  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel. 
Baptism  was  intended  to  teach  the  necessity  of  the  soul's  being 
cleansed  from  guilt  by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  purified  from  the 
pollution  of  sin  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  were 
further  designed  to  be  perpetual  memorials'  of  the  work  of  re- 
demption, and  especially  to  be  the  means  by  which  men  should, 
in  the  sight  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world,  profess  themselves 
to  be  Christians.  As  a  heathen,  when  he  desired  to  be  admitted 
into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  received  circumcision,  which  was 
the  divinely  appointed  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  so  par- 
ticipation in  the  Christian  sacraments  was  the  appointed  means 
for  the  public  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  Paul  presents  the 
matter  in  this  light  in  1  Corinthians  x.  15-22,  where  he  argues 
that  participation  in  the  sacred  rites  of  a  religion  involves  a  pro- 
fession of  that  rehgion,  whether  it  be  Christian,  Jewish,  or  hea- 
then. The  sacraments,  therefore,  are  "  badges  of  Christian  men's 
profession."  This  doctrine,  however,  attributes  to  them  no  other 
than  what  Zwingle  calls  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  "  an  objec- 
tive power; "  that  is,  the  objective  presentation  of  the  truth  which 
they  signify  to  the  mind. 

"  Ex   quibus  hoc  colligitur    sacramenta    dari    in  testimonium 

publicum  ejus  gratise,  quse  cuique  privato  prius  adest Ob 

banc  causam  sacramenta,  quse  sacrae  sunt  cerimoniaa  (accedit  enim 
verbum  ad  elementum  et  fit  sacramentura),  religiose  colenda,  hoc 
est  in  precio  habenda,  et  honorifice  tractanda  sunt,  ut  enim  gra- 
tiam  facere  non  possunt,  EcclesiaB  tamen  nos  visibiliter  sociant, 
qui  prius  invisibiliter  sumus  in  illam  recepti,  quod  cum  simul 
cum  jDromissionis  divinaj  verbis  in  ipsorum  actione  pronunciatur  ac 
promulgatur,  summa  religione  suscipiendum  est."  ^  In  his  treatise 
on  true  and  false  religion,  Zwingle  says :  '•  Impossibile  est,  ut  res 
aliqua  externa  fidem  hominis  internam  confirmet  et  stabiliat."^ 
And  again  he  says  ^  that  the  sacraments  as  other  memorials  can 

1  Zwinijlii  Fidei  Rntin,  Niemeyer,  vol.  i.  pp.  25,  2G. 

3  Works,  edit.  Scluilei-  uiul  Scluiltcss.(?)  See  Strauss,  Dogmalik,  vol.  ii.  p.  519. 

•  Eaepositio  Christiance  Fidel,  70;  Niemeyer,  vol.  i.  p.  49. 


§4.]  THE    SACRAMENTS      TllEIll   EFFICACY.  499 

only  produce  historical,  but  not  religious  faith.  Zwingle  in  the 
use  of  such  language,  had  doubtless  more  a  negative,  than  an  af- 
firmative object  before  his  mind.  He  was  more  intent  on  denying 
the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  inherent  power  of  the  sacraments, 
than  of  asserting  anything  of  their  real  efficacy.  Nevertheless 
it  is  true  that  Zwingle  has  ever  been  regarded  as  holding  the 
lowest  doctrine  concerning  the  sacraments  of  any  of  the  Re- 
formers. They  were  to  him  no  more  means  of  grace  than  the 
rainbow  or  the  heaps  of  stone  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan.  By 
their  significancy  and  by  association  they  might  suggest  truth  and 
awaken  feeling,  but  they  were  not  channels  of  divine  communi- 
cation. 

Doctrine  of  the    Reformed   Church. 

The  first  point  clearly  taught  on  this  subject  in  the  Symbols  of  \ 
the  Reformed  Church  is  that  the  sacraments  are  real  means  of  \. 
grace,  that  is,  means  appointed  and  employed  by  Christ  for  con- 
veying the  benefits  of  his  redemption  to  his  people.  They  arc 
not,  as  Romanists  teach,  the  exclusive  channels  ;  but  they  are 
channels.  A  promise  is  made  to  those  who  rightly  receive  the 
sacraments  that  they  shall  thereby  and  therein  be  made  partak- 
ers of  the  blessings  of  which  the  sacraments  are  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed signs  and  seals.  The  word  grace,  when  we  speak  of  the 
means  of  grace,  includes  three  things.  1st.  An  unmerited  gift, 
such  as  the  remission  of  sin.  2d.  The  supernatural  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  3d.  The  subjective  effects  of  tjjat, influence  on 
the  soul.  _  Faith,  hope,  and  charity,  for  example,  are  graces. 

The  second  point  in  the  Reformed  doctrine  on  the  sacraments 
concerns  the  source  of  their  power.  On  this  subject  it  is  taught 
negatively  that  the  virtue  is  not  in  them.  The  word  virtue  is  of 
course  here  used  in  its  Latin  sense  for  power  or  efficiency.  What 
is  denied  is  that  the  sacraments  are  the  efficient  cause  of  the 
gracious  effects  which  they  produce.  The  efficiency  does  not 
reside  in  the  elements,  in  the  water  used  in  baptism,  or  in  the 
bread  and  wine  used  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  not  in  the  sacra- 
mental actions ;  either  in  giving,  or  in  receiving  the  consecrated 
elements.  Neither  does  the  virtue  or  efficiency  due  to  sacraments 
reside  in,  or  flow  from  the  person  by  whom  they  are  administered. 
It  does  not  reside  in  his  office.  There  is  no  supernatural  power 
in  the  man,  in  virtue  of  his  office,  to  render  the  sacraments  ef- 
fectual. Nor  does  their  efficiency  depend  on  the  character  of  the 
administrator  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  nor  upon  his  intention  ;  that 
is,  his  purpose  to  render  them  effectual.     The  man  who  adminis- 


500  PART   111     Cu.   XX. —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

ters  the  sacraments  is  not  a  worker  of  mii-acles.  The  Apostlea 
and  others  at  that  time  in  the  Church,  were  endued  mth  super- 
natural power  ;  and  they  had  to  mil  to  exercise  it  in  order  to  its 
producing  its  legitimate  effect.  It  is  not  so  with  the  officers  of 
the  Church  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  The  affirma- 
tive statement  on  this  subject  is,  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments is  due  solely  to  the  blessing  of  Christ  and  the  working  of 
liis  Spirit.  The  Spirit,  it  is  to  be  ever  remembered,  is  a  personal 
agent  who  works  when  and  how  He  mil.  God  has  promised  that 
his  Spirit  shall  attend  his  Word  ;  and  He  thus  renders  it  an 
effectual  means  for  the  sanctification  of  his  people.  So  He  has 
promised,  through  the  attending  operation  of  his  Spirit,  to  render 
the  sacraments  effectual  to  the  same  end. 

The  third  point  included  in  the  Reformed  doctrine  is,  that  the 
sacraments  are  effectual  as  means  of  grace  only,  so  far  as  adults 
are  concerned,  to  those  who  by  faith  receive  them.  They  may 
have  a  natural  power  on  other  than  believers  by  presenting  truth 
and  exciting  feeling,  but  their  saving  or  sanctifying  influence  is 
experienced  only  by  believers. 

All  these  points  are  clearly  presented  in  the  standards  of  our 
own  Church.  The  sacraments  are  declared  to  be  means  of  grace, 
that  is,  means  for  signifying,  sealing,  and  applying  the  benefits  of 
redemption.  It  is  denied  that  this  virtue  is  in  them,  or  in  him 
by  whom  they  are  administered.  It  is  affirmed  that  their  ef- 
ficiency in  conveying  grace,  is  due  solely  to  the  blessing  of  Christ 
and  the  cooperation  of  his  Spirit ;  and  that  such  efficiency  is  ex- 
perienced only  by  believers.  Thus  in  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
the  sacraments  are  said  to  be  holy  ordinances  "  instituted  by 
Christ ;  wherein,  by  sensible  signs,  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  the 
new  covenant  are  represented,  sealed,  and  applied  to  believers."^ 
In  the  Larger  Catechism  the  sacraments  are  said  to  be  instituted 
"  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  unto  those  that  are  within  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  the  benefits  of  his  [Christ's]  mediation."  ^  The 
word  "  exliibit,"  as  here  used,  means  to  confer,  or  impart,  as  the 
Latin  word  "  exhibere  "  also  sometimes  means.  That  such  is  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  our  standards,  is  plain  because  the  exhibition 
here  spoken  of  is  confined  to  those  within  the  covenant ;  and  be- 
cause this  word  is  interchanged  and  explained  by  the  word  "  con- 
fer." Thus  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  ^  it  is  said,  "  The  grace 
which  is  exhibited  in,  or  by  the  sacraments,  rightly  used,  is  not 
conferred  by  any  virtue  in  them."  And  again,^  that  by  the  right 
1  Qoes.  92.  2  Ques.  162.  s  Chap.  xxvii.  3  «  Chap,  xxviii.  6 


§4]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  EFFICACY.  501 

use  of  baptism  "  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really 
exhibited  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of 
age  or  infants)  as  that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the 
counsel  of  God's  own  will,  in  his  appointed  time."  With  this 
view  of  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace  all  the  other  leading 
symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches  agree.  Thus  the  First  Hel- 
vetic Confession  ^  says,  "  Asserimus,  sacramenta  non  solum  tes- 
seras  quasdam  societatis  Christianae,  sed  et  gratis  divings  symbola 
esse,  quibus  ministri,  Domino,  ad  eum  finem,  quem  ipse  promittit, 
offert  et  efficit,  cooperentur."  The  Galilean  Confession  says : 
"  Fatemur  talia  esse  signa  hsec  exteriora,  ut  Deus  per  ilia  Sancti 
sui  Spiritus  virtute,  operetur,  ne  quicquam  ibi  frustra  nobis  sig- 
nificetur."  ^  In  the  Geneva  Catechism  ^  it  is  said  :  "  Quid  est  sac- 
ramentum  ?  Externa  divinas  erga  nos  benevolentise  testificatio, 
quae  visibili  signo  spirituales  gratias  figurat,  ad  obsignandos  cordi- 
bus  nostris  Dei  promissiones,  quo  earum  Veritas  melius  confirmetur. 
....  Vim  efficaciamque  sacramenti  non  in  externo  elemento  in- 
clusam  esse  existimas,  sed  totam  a  Spiritu  Dei  manare  ?  Sic  sen- 
tio :  nempe,  ut  virtutem  suam  exerere  Domino  placuerit  per  sua 
organa,  quem  in  finem  ea  destinavit."  The  language  of  the  Belgic 
Confession^  is  to  the  same  effect :  "  Sunt  enim  sacramenta  signa, 
ac  symbola  visibilia  rervim  internarum  et  invisibilium,  per  quse, 
ceu  per  media,  Deus  ipse  virtute  Spiritus  Sancti  in  nobis  opera- 
tur.  Itaque  signa  ilia  minime  vana  sunt,  aut  vacua  :  nee  ad  nos 
decipiendos  aut  frustrandos  instituta." 

These  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  agree  with  those  of  our  own  Church,  not  only  in  repre- 
senting the  sacraments  as  real  means  of  grace,  but  also  in  denying 
that  their  efficacy  is  due  to  their  inherent  virtue,  or  to  him  who 
administers  them,  and  in  affirming  that  it  is  due  to  the  attending 
operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  is  conditioned  on  the  presence  of  faith 
in  the  recipient.  This  is  plain  from  the  quotations  already  made, 
which  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  On  this  point  Calvin 
says  :  "  Neque  sacramenta  hilum  proficere  sine  Spiritu  Sancti  vir- 
tute." And  again :  "  Spiritus  Sanctus  (quem  non  omnibus  jDro- 
miscue  sacramenta  advehunt,  sed  quem  Dominus  peculiariter  suis 
confert)  is  est  qui  Dei  gratias  secum  affert,  qui  dat  sacramentis 
in  nobis  locum,  qui  efficit  ut  fructificent."^    Guerike  ^  gives  as  one 

1  Art.  XXI. ;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  120. 

2  Art.  XXXIV. ;  Ibid.  p.  337. 

8  V.  De  Sacramentis,  2  and  5;  Ibid.  pp.  160,  161.  *  Art.  xxxiii. ;  Ibid.  p.  383. 

6  Institutio,  IV.  xiv.  9,  17;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  part  ii.  pp.  355,  360. 
«  Allgetneine  ChHstliche  Symbolik,  vou  H.  E.  Ferdinand  Guerike,  D,  D.,  Leipzig,  1S3V, 
p.  378. 


502  PART  HI.     Ch.    XX.  — the   MExVNS   OF    GRACE. 

of  the  main  points  of  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed on  this  subject,  that  the  latter  deny  the  inherent  power 
of  the  sacraments,  and  insist  that  the  "  virtus  Spiritus  Sancti 
extrinsecus  accidens  "  is  the  source  of  all  their  sanctifying  influ- 
ence. 

There  is,  therefore,  a  strict  analogy,  according  to  the  Reformed 
doctrme,  between  the  Word  and  the  sacraments  as  means  of 
grace.  (1.)  Both  have  in  them  a  certain  moral  power  due  to  the 
truth  which  they  bring  before  the  mind.  (2.)  Neither  has  in 
itself  any  supernatural  power  to  save  or  to  sanctify.  (3.)  All 
their  supernatural  efficiency  is  due  to  the  cooperation  or  attending 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  (4.)  Both  are  ordained  by  God  to 
be  the  channels  or  means  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  to  those  who 
by  faith  receive  them.  Nothmg  is  said  in  the  Bible  to  place  the 
sacraments  above  the  Word  as  a  means  of  communicating  to  men 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  On  the  contrary,  tenfold 
more  is  said  in  Scripture  of  the  necessity  and  efiiciency  of  the 
Word  in  the  salvation  of  men,  than  is  therein  said  or  implied  of 
the  power  of  the  sacraments. 

Besides  the  points  already  referred  to  as  characteristic  of  the 
Reformed  doctrine  on  the  sacraments,  there  is  a  fourth,  which  is, 
that  the  grace  or  spiritual  benefits  received  by  believers  in  the 
use  of  the  sacraments,  may  be  attained  without  their  use.  This, 
however,  may  perhaps  be  more  properly  considered,  when  the 
necessity  of  the  sacraments  comes  under  consideration. 

The  Lutheran  Doctrine. 

There  are  two  points  specially  insisted  upon  by  Lutherans  in 
reference  to  the  efiicacy  of  the  sacraments.  The  first  is,  the 
absolute  necessity  of  faith  in  order  to  any  real  sanctifying  or  sav- 
ing benefit  being  derived  from  the  use  of  those  ordinances.  On 
this  point  they  are  in  perfect  accord  -with  the  Reformed.  Hase  is 
right  when  he  says  that  the  idea,  "  That  a  sacrament  can  confer 
saving  benefit  without  faith  is  utterly  destructive  of  Protestant- 
ism." ^  Augustine  had  long  ago  taught  the  doctrine,  "  Unde  ista' 
tanta  virtus  aquaa,  ut  corpus  tangat,  et  cor  abluat,  nisi  faciente 
verbo  :  non  quia  dicitur,  sed  quia  creditur."-  And  Bernard  of 
Clairvaux  says  :  "  Sacramentum  enim  sine  re  sacramenti  sumenti 

1  Evangelhclie  Dogmatik,  ii.  ii.  1,  §  213;  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1842,  p.  442. 

2  In  Joannis  Evangelium  Traclatus,  Lxxx.  3;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris  1837 
vol.  iii.  p.  2200,  a. 


§4.]  THE   SACRAMENTS.     THEHl  EFFICACY.  503 

mors  est :  res  vero  sacramenti,  etiam,  preeter  sacramentum,  su- 
menti  vita  aeterna  est."  ^ 

The  Lutheran  symbols  on  this  point  are  perfectly  explicit.  In 
the  "  Augsburg  Confession  "  ^  it  is  said :  "  Itaque  utendum  est 
sacramentum  ita,  ut  fides  accedat,  quge  credat  promissionibus, 
qugs  per  sacramenta  exliibentur  et  ostenduntur.  Damnant  igitur 
illos,  qui  decent,  quod  sacramenta,  ex  opere  operato  justificent, 
nee  decent  fidem  requiri  in  usu  sacramentorum,  quge  credat  re- 
mitti  peccata." 

In  the  "  Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession  "  ^  it  is  said ; 
"  Damnamus  totum  populum  scholasticorum  doctorum,  qui  do- 
cent,  quod  sacramenta  non  ponenti  obicem  conferant  gratiam  ex 
opere  operato,  sine  bono  motu  utentis.  Hsec  simphciter  Judaica 
opinio  est,  sen  tire,  quod  per  ceremoniam  justificemur,  sine  bono 

motu  cordis,  hoc  est,  sine  fide At  sacramenta  sunt  signa 

promissionum.     Igitur  in  usu  debet  accedere  fides Loqui- 

mur  hie  de  fide  speciali,  quge  praesenti  promissioni  credit,  non  tan- 
tum  quffi  in  genere  credit  Deum  esse,  sed  quse  credit  offerri  remis- 
sionem  peccatorum." 

The  second  point  in  the  doctrine  of  Lutherans  in  regard  to  the 
efiicacy  of  the  sacraments  is  one  in  which  they  differ  from  the 
Reformed,  and  as  Guerike,  himself  a  strenuous  Lutheran,  cor- 
rectly says,  approximate  to  the  Romanists.  They  hold  that  the 
eflficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  due  to  their  own  inherent  virtue  or 
power  ;  a  power  independent,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  attendant 
influences  of  the  Spirit  (extrinsecus  accidens),  and,  on  the  othei' 
hand,  of  the  faith  of  the  recipient.  Faith,  indeed,  is  necessary  to 
any  saving  or  sanctifying  effect,  but  that  is  only  a  subjective  con- 
dition on  which  the  beneficial  operation  of  the  power,  inherent  in 
the  sacraments,  is  suspended.  Bellarmin's  illustration  is  applica- 
ble to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  well  as  to  his  own.  Fire  will  not 
cause  wood  to  burn  unless  the  wood  be  dry  ;  but  its  dryness  does 
not  give  fire  its  power.  Luther's  own  favourite  illustration  was 
drawn  from  the  case  of  the  woman  who  touched  the  Saviour's 
garment.  There  was  inherent  healing  virtue  in  Christ.  Those 
who  touched  him  without  faith  received  no  benefit.  The  woman 
having  faith  was  healed  the  moment  she  touched  the  hem  of  his 
garment.  Her  faith,  however,  was  in  no  sense  the  source  of  the 
power  wliich  resided  in  Christ.     Guerike  complains  that  the  Re* 

1  Guigo  (attributed  to  St.  Bernard);    Works  of  St.  Bernard,  edit.  Mipcne,  Paris,  1859.  vol. 
iii.  p.  327,  b,  c  (ii.  214). 
^  I.  xiii. ;  Hase,  Libj-i  SymboUci,  Leipzig,  1846,  p.  13.  3  vii.  18-21 ;  IbiiJ.  p.  203. 


604         PART   III.     On.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

formed  teacli  that  "  the  visible  signs  do  not  as  such  convey  any 
invisible  divine  grace  ;  that  without  the  sacraments  the  Christian 
may  enjoy  through  faith  the  same  divine  gifts  which  the  sacra- 
ments are  intended  to  convey,  and  hence  do  not  admit  their  abso- 
lute necessity,  much  less  that  they  are  the  central  point  of  the 
Christian  method  of  salvation  (der  christlichen  Heilsanstalt)."^ 

Luther  did  not  at  first  hold  this  inherent  power  of  the  sacra- 
ments, but  seemed  disposed  to  adopt  even  the  low  views  of  Zwin- 
gle.  In  his  work  on  the  Babylonish  Captivity  he  ssys,  "  Bap- 
tismus  neminem  justificat,  nee  ulli  prodest,  sed  fides  in  verbimi 
promissionis,  cui  additur  baptismus Nee  verum  esse  po- 
test, sacramentis  inesse  vim  efficacem  justificationis  seu  esse  signa 
efficacia  P'ratioe."  ^  Melancthon  uses  much  the  same  lanouage  : 
"  Non  justificant  signa,  ut  Apostolus  ait,  Circumcisio  nihil  est : 
ita  baptismus  nihil  est.  Participatio  mensffi  Domini  nihil  est : 
sed  testes  sunt  koI  o-^paytSes  divinse  voluntatis  erga  te,  quibus  con- 
scientia  tua  certa  reddatur,  si  de  gratia,  de  benevolentia  Dei  erga 

se  dubitet Quae  alii  sacramenta,  nos  signa  appellamus, 

aut  si  ita  libet,  signa  sacramentalia.  Nam  sacramentum  ipsum 
Christum  Paulus  vocat."  ^  "  Hinc  apparet,  quam  nihil  signa  sint, 
nisi  fidei  exercendse  /uiT^/xdcruia."  4 

As,  however,  Luther  understood  our  Lord's  words  in  John  iii. 
5,  as  teaching  the  necessity  of  baptism,  he  inferred  that  if  the 
sacrament  is  necessary  to  salvation  it  must  have  saving  power. 
But  as  the  Bible  teaches  that  no  one  can  be  saved  without  faith, 
he  held  that  the  sacraments  could  have  no  saving  effect  unless 
the  recipient  was  a  believer.  We  have  thus  the  two  essential 
elements  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  sacraments ;  they  have 
inherent,  saving,  sanctifying  power  ;  but  that  jDower  takes  effect 
for  good  only  upon  believers. 

The  necessity  of  faith  is  clearl}^  stated  in  the  passages  already 
quoted  from  the  "  Augsburg  Confession  "  and  the  "  Apology  ;  " 
the  inlierent  power  of  the  sacraments  in  opposition  to  the  Reformed 
doctrine  is  as  clearly  taught  in  the  Lutheran  standards.  Both 
points  are  included  in  some  of  the  proof  passages  which  follow. 
Guerike  says :  "It  is  undoubtedly  the  Lutheran,  in  opposition 
to  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  '  virtus   Spiritus  sancti  extrinsecus 

1  Allgcmeine  ChristUche  Symholih,  §  54,  Leipzig,  1839,  pp.  375,  376. 

2  Luther,  Cnptivitas  Biibijfunica,  de  Sacramento  Baptismi ;  Works,  edit.  Wittenberg 
(Latin),  154G,  vol.  ii.  leaf  70,  pa-,'e  2. 

8  Loci  Communes  ;  De  Sif/nis ;  edit.  Strasburg,  1523,  in  Dodecas  Scriptoi-um  Tkeoloff- 
iixyrum,  Nuremberg,  164G,  pp.  774,  775. 
*  Ibid.,  De  Baptismo,  p.  778. 


§4,]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   EFFICACY.  505 

accedens,'  that  the  grace  is  in,  and  not  merely  with  or  by  (mit 
oder  neben),  the  sacraments."  ^  He  refers  to  the  language  of 
Luther  in  his  Larger  Catechism  in  reference  to  baptism.  Luther 
says  :  "  Interrogatus,  quid  baptismus  sit  ?  ita  responde  :  non  esse 
prorsus  aquam  simplicem,  sed  ejusmodi,  quae  verbo  et  praecepto 
Dei  comprehensa,  et  illi  inclusa  sit,  et  per  hoc  sanctificata  ita  ut 
nihil  aliud  sit,  quam  Dei  seu  divina  aqua."  He  adds,  however, 
"  non  quod  aqua  hsec  per  sese  quavis  aha  sit  praestantior,  sed 
quod  ei  verbum  ac  prteceptum  Dei  accesserit.  Quocirca  mera 
sycophantia  est  et  diaboh  illusio,  quod  hodie  nostri  novi  spiritus, 
ut  blasphement  et  contumelia  afficiant  baptismum,  verbum  et 
institutionem  Dei  ab  eo  divellunt,  nee  aliter  intuentur  eum,  quam 
aquam  e  putreo  haustam  ac  deinceps  ita  blasphemo  ore  blaterant ; 
Quid  vero  utilitatis  manus  aquas  plena  prasstaret  animse  ?  Quis 
vero  adeo  vecors  et  inops  animi  est,  qui  hoc  ignoret,  divulsis  bap- 
tismi  partibus,  aquam  esse  aquam  ?  Qua  vero  fronte  tu  tibi 
tantum  sumis,  ut  non  verearis  ab  ordinatione  Dei  pretiosissimum 
KeifjLTQXiov  avellere,  quo  Dens  illam  constrinxit  et  inclusit,  neque 
inde  divelh  vult  aut  sejungi  ?  Quippe  verbum  Dei,  ant  prae- 
ceptum,  item  nomen  Dei,  in  aqua  ipse  solet  esse  nucleus,  qui 
thesaurus  ipso  coelo  et  terra  omnibus  modis  nobilior  est  et  prae- 
stantior." 2 

Lutherans  are  wont  to  refer  to  the  analogy  between  the  Word 
and  sacraments.  The  difference  between  them  and  the  Reformed 
as  to  the  sacraments,  is  analogous  to  the  difference  between  the 
two  churches  as  to  the  Word.  The  Reformed  refer  the  super- 
natural power  of  the  Word,  not  to  the  literal  Word  as  wi'itten  or 
spoken  ;  not  to  the  mere  moral  truth  therein  revealed,  but  to  the 
cooperation,  or  as  Paul  calls  it,  the  demonstration,  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Lutherans,  on  the  other  hand,  teach  that  there  is  inherent  in 
the  divine  Word  (not  in  the  letters  or  the  sound  but  in  the  truth), 
a  supernatural,  divine  virtue,  inseparable  from  it,  and  indepen- 
dent of  its  use ;  and  which  is  the  same  to  believers  and  unbe- 
lievers ;  sanctifying  and  saving  the  former,  because  of  their  faith, 
and  not  benefiting  the  latter,  because  of  their  voluntary  resist- 
ance. So  the  sacraments  have  an  inherent,  divine  power,  certain 
of  producing  saving  effects,  if  they  meet  with  faith  in  those  who 
receive  them.  "  The  Lutheran  Church,"  says  Guerike,  "regards 
the  sacraments  as  actions,  wherein  God,  through  external  signs 
by  Him  appointed,  offers  and  confers  his  invisible  and  heavenly 

1  Symholih,  Leipzig,  1839,  p.  393,  note. 

'  Catechismus  Major,  par.  iv.,  De  Baptismo ;  Hase,  Libri  Symholid,  edit.  Leipzig,  1846, 
p.  637. 


506  PART    III.     Ch.   XX. —  the   means    OF    GRACE. 

gifts  ;  they  see  in  tlie  sacraments  \'isible  signs,  wliicli  in  virtue  of 
the  divine  vt^ord  of  promise  pronomiced  over  them,  in  such  sense 
contain  the  invisible  divine  gifts  they  signify,  that  they  communi- 
cate them  (mittheilen)  to  all  who  partake  of  them,  although  only 
to  believers  to  their  good."  ^ 

This  inherent  divine  virtue  of  the  sacraments  does  not  reside 
in  the  elements  ;  nor  does  it  flow  from  him  who  administers  them ; 
nor  is  it  due  to  the  concurrent  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but 
to  the  Word.  The  elements  employed  are  in  themselves  mere 
elements  ;  with  the  Word,  they  are  divinely  efficacious,  because 
the  divine  Word,  wherever  it  is,  is  fraught  with  this  divine,  super- 
natural, saving,  and  sanctifying  power  which  always  takes  effect 
on  those  who  have  faith  to  receive  it. 

Dr.  Schmid  of  Erlangen,  however,  admits  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference of  view  on  this  subject,  between  the  earher  and  later 
theologians  of   his  Church.     The   former   made   the  sacrament 

o 

consist  of  the  element  and  the  Word,  and  referred  its  suj)ernatural 
effect  to  the  inherent  divine  power  of  the  latter,  agreeably  to 
Luther's  representation  in  his  Larger  Catechism,  where,  when 
speaking  of  baptism,  he  says,  in  words  already  quoted :  "  non 
tantum  naturalis  aqua  sed  etiam  divina,  coelestis,  sancta  et  sal- 
utifera  aqua  (est)  ....  hocque  nonnisi  verbi  gratia,  quod 
coeleste  ac  sanctum  verbum  est."  The  later  theologians,  how- 
ever, from  the  time  of  Gerhard,  did  not  make  the  sacrament 
consist  of  the  element  and  the  Word ;  but  of  something  terrestrial 
and  something  celestial.  The  former  is  the  element  or  external 
symbol,  "  quod  est  res  corporea  visibiHs  ....  ordinata  ad  hoc  ; 
ut  sit  rei  coelestis  vehiculum  et  medium  exhibitivum."  The 
latter,  or  "  res  coelestis,"  is  "  res  invisibilis  et  intelligibihs,  re 
terrena  visibiU,  tanquam  medio  divinitus  ordinato  exhibita,  a  qua 
fructus  sacramenti  principaliter  dependet."  According  to  this 
view  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  does  not  depend  upon  the 
Word,  but  upon  this  "res  coelestis,"  of  which  the  "res  terrena" 
is  the  vehicle  and  medivmi.  The  office  of  the  Word  is  to  unite 
the  two.  It  is  called  the  "  alnov  TTot-qTiKov^  hoc  est,  efficere,  ut 
duae  illas  partes  essentiales  unum  sacramentum  constituant  in  usu 
sacramentorum."  ^  This  doctrine  of  the  later  Lutherans  is  at- 
tended with  serious  difficulties.  It  brings  them  into  conflict  with 
Luther  and  Lutherans  of  the  older  school  who   are    strenuoua 

1  Guerike's  Symbolik,  p.  372. 

2  Schmid,  Die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche.  Frankfort  and  Erlangen, 
1863,  pp.  415-417. 


§4.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     TIIf:iR  EFFICACY.  507 

in  referring  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  to  the  Word.  The 
elements  without  the  Word,  are  mere  elements.  It  is  the  Word  in 
which  the  supernatural  power  resides  which  produces  the  effect 
the  sacrament  is  intended  to  accomplish.  But  according  to  this 
later  view  there  are  in  the  sacraments  two  things,  the  sign  and 
the  thing  signified;  a  "  res  terrena  "  and  a  "  res  coelestis."  They 
are  so  united  that  where  the  one  is  given  and  received  by  faith, 
the  other  is  received.  This  "  res  coelestis,"  however,  is  not  the 
Word.  In  the  case  of  the  eucharist,  for  example,  it  is  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  these  being  inseparably  united 
with  his  soul  and  divinity,  it  is  this  marvellous  gift,  and  not  the 
Word,  which  makes  the  Lord's  Supper  the  life-sustaining  food  of 
the  soul. 

So  far  as  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  concerned,  the  main 
point  of  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  is, 
that  the  latter  attribute  their  sanctifying  power  to  the  attending 
influences  of  the  Spirit ;  the  former  to  the  inherent,  supernatural 
power  of  the  Word  which  is  an  essential  part  of  these  divine  ordi- 
nances. Even  on  this  point  Chemnitz  expresses  himself  in  a  way 
to  which  any  Reformed  theologian  may  assent.  "  Recte  Apol- 
ogia Augustanas  confessionis  dicit,  eundem  esse  effectum,  eandem 
virtutein,  seu  efficaciam,  et  verbi    et    sacramentorum,  quae  sunt 

sigilla  promissionum Sicut  igitur  Evangehum  est  poten- 

tia  Dei  ad  salutem  omni  credenti :  non  quod  magica  quaedam  vis 
characteribus,  syllabis,  aut  sono  verborum  inhasreat,  sed  quia  est 
medium,  organon  seu  instrumentum,  per  quod  Spiritus  Sanctiis 
efficax  est,  proponens,  offerens,  exhibens,  distribuens  et  applicans 
meritum  Christi,  et  gratiam  Dei,  ad  salutem  omni  credenti :  ita 
etiam  sacramentis  tribuitur  vis  et  efficacia :  non  quod  in  sacra- 
mentis  extra  seu  prseter  meritum  Christi,  misericordiam  Patris,  et 
efficaciam  Spiritus  Sancti,  quaerenda  sit  gratia  ad  salutem ;  sed 
sacramenta  sunt  causae  instrumentales  ita,  quod  per  ilia  media 
seu  organa.  Pater  vult  gratiam  suam  exhibere,  donare,  applicare  : 
Filius  meritum  suum  communicare  credentibus  :  Spiritus  Sanctus 
efficaciam  suam  exercere,  ad  salutem  omni  credenti."  ^ 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  as  generally  presented  and  as  stated 
above,  stands  opposed,  (1.)  To  the  doctrine  of  the  Romanists  which 
denies  the  necessity  of  a  living  faith  in  the  recipient  in  order  to 
his  experiencing  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  ;  and  which  not 
only  represents  them  as  imbued  with  an  inherent  power,  but  also 

1  Examen  Concilii  Tridentini,  de  Efficacia  et  Usu  Sacramentorum,  edit.  Frankfort-on- 
the-Main,  1573, 1574,  part  ii.  p.  22,  b. 


b08         PART  III.     Cn.   XX.  — THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

teaches  that  they  confer  grace  "  ex  opere  operate. "  (2.)  To  the 
doctrine  which  makes  the  sacraments  merely  badges  of  a  Chris- 
tian profession.  (3.)  To  the  doctrine  which  represents  them  as 
mere  allegories  or  significant  exhibitions  of  truth.  (4.)  To  the 
doctrine  which  regards  them  as  merely  commemorative,  as  a  por- 
trait or  monument  may  be.  (5.)  To  the  doctrine  which  denies  to 
them  inherent  efiicacy  and  refers  their  sanctifjdng  influence  to 
the  accompanying  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  (6.)  To  the 
doctrine  which  assumes  that  they  confer  nothing  which  may  not 
be  obtamed  by  faith  without  them.  In  all  these  points,  with  the 
exception  of  the  last  two,  Lutherans  and  Reformed  are  agreed. 

Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  Efficacy  of  the  Sacra- 
ments: 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  Romanists  teach,  (1.)  That 
the  sacraments  contain  the  grace  which  they  signify.  (2.)  That 
they  convey  that  grace  "  ex  opere  operato."  (3.)  That  there  is 
a  certain  efiicacy  common  to  all  the  sacraments.  They  all  con- 
vey grace,  i.  e.,  "  gratia  gratum  faciens,  sanctificans  ;  "  and  be- 
sides this  common  infiuence,  in  baptism,  confirmation,  and  orders, 
there  is  conveyed  an  indelible  character  (quoddam  indelebile)  in 
virtue  of  which  they  can  never  be  repeated.  (4.)  That  the  con- 
ditions of  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  on  the  part  of  the  ad- 
nunistrator  are,  first,  that  he  have  authority  (this  is  limited  in  its 
application  to  baptism)  ;  and  second,  that  he  have  the  intention 
of  doing  what  the  Church  designs  to  be  done  ;  and  in  regard  to 
the  recipient,  that  he  does  not  oppose  an  obstacle.  The  sacra- 
ments are  declared  to  be  effectual  "  non  ponentibus  obicem." 

In  what  Sense  do  the  Sacraments  contain  Grace  ? 

By  this  is  meant  that  they  possess  in  them  inherent  virtue  of 
rendering  holy  those  to  whom  they  are  administered.  Their 
power  in  the  sphere  of  religion  is  analogous  to  that  of  articles  of 
the  "  materia  medica  "  in  the  sphere  of  physics.  Some  have  a 
narcotic  power ;  some  act  on  one  organ  and  some  on  another ; 
some  are  stimulants,  and  some  are  sedatives.  Or  to  refer  to  the 
illustration  so  familiar  with  Bellarmin  ;  the  inherent  virtue  of 
the  sacraments  to  confer  grace,  is  analogous  to  that  of  fire  to 
burn.  Fire  produces  combustion  because  it  is  ordained  by  God 
and  imbued  mth  power  to  that  end.  The  sacraments  confer 
grace  because  they  are  endowed  with  grace-imparting  efficacy, 
and  are  ordamed  by  God  for  that  purpose.  "  Containing  grace ' 


§4.]  THE   SACRAMENTS     THEIR   EFFICACY.  509 

and  "  conferring  grace  "  "  virtute  sibi  insita,"  are  explanatory 
forms  of  expression.  The  sacraments  are  said  to  contain  grace 
because  they  confer  it  by  their  inherent  virtue.  This  is  intended 
as  a  denial  that  their  efficacy  is  due  to  the  moral,  or  to  the  super- 
natural power  of  the  truth  ;  or  to  the  attending  influences  of  the 
Spirit,  or  to  the  subjective  state  of  those  who  receive  them. 

As  to  the  peculiar  effect  ascribed  to  baptism,  confirmation,  and 
orders,  little  is  said.  These  sacraments  are  never  repeated.  For 
this  some  reason  was  to  be  assigned,  and,  therefore,  it  was  as- 
sumed that  they  left  an  indelible  impression  on  the  soul.  What 
that  is,  cannot  be  stated  further  than  by  saying  that  it  is  a  "  Sig- 
num  quoddam  spirituale  et  indelebile  in  anima  impressum.  Qui 
eo  insigniti  sunt,  deputantur  ad  recipienda  vel  tradenda  aliis  ea, 
quae  pertinent  ad  cultum  Dei."  ^  The  language  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  sheds  no  light  on  the  subject.  It  simply  says  :  ^  "  Si 
quis  dixerit,  in  tribus  sacramentis,  baptismo  scilicet  confirmatione, 
et  ordine,  non  imprimi  characterem  in  anima,  hoc  est  signum 
quoddam  spirituale  et  indelebile,  unde  ea  iterari  non  possunt; 
anathema  sit.".  The  only  passages  of  Scriptm-e  referred  to  by 
Perrone  in  support  of  this  assumption,  are  2  Corinthians  i.  22, 
and  Ephesians  i.  13,  in  which  the  Apostle  speaks  of  all  behevers 
being  sealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  those  passages  there  is  not 
the  slightest  reference  to  any  sacramental  impression.  In  the 
second  part  of  the  Roman  Catechism  in  answer  to  the  question, 
What  "  character  "  in  this  connection  signifies,  it  is  said  that  it 
is  something  which  cannot  be  removed,  and  which  renders  the 
soul  fit  to  receive  or  to  perform  certain  spiritual  benefits  or  func- 
tions. Thus  in  baptism  a  certain  something  is  impressed  upon 
the  soul  by  which  it  is  prepared  to  receive  the  benefit  of  other 
sacraments,  and  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from  the  souls  of 
the  unbaptized.  In  confirmation  the  soul  is  marked  as  a  soldier 
of  Christ  and  prepared  to  contend  against  all  spiritual  enemies. 
In  orders  something  is  received  Avhich  fits  the  recipient  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments,  and  which  distinguishes  him  from  all  other 
Christians. 

Ex  Opere  Operato. 

The  Council  of  Trent  anathematizes,  as  we  have  seen,  not  only 
those  who  deny  that  the  sacraments  convey  grace,  but  also  those 
who  deny  that  they  convey  it  "  ex  opere  operato."    The  meaning 

1  Perrone,  P  reelect  tones  Theologicce,  De  Sacramentis  in  genere,  cap,  ii.  1,  2;  edit.  Paris, 
1861,  vol.  ii.  pp.  220,  a,  224. 

2  Sess.  vii.  de  Saci-amentis  in  genere,  canon  9;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  39. 


510       PART  m.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

of  this  plirase  is  intelligible  enough  if  left  unexplained.  It  has 
been  obscured  by  the  explanations  given  by  Romanists  themselves, 
as  well  as  by  the  conflicting  views  of  Protestants  on  the  subject. 
To  say  that  the  sacraments  contain  grace ;  that  they  convey  it 
"  virtute  sibi  insita,"  that  they  convey  it  "  ex  opere  operato,"  all 
amomit  to  the  same  thing.  The  simple  meaning  is  that  such  is 
the  nature  of  the  sacraments  that,  when  duly  administered,  they 
produce  a  given  effect.  There  is  no  necessity  and  no  propriety  in 
looking  beyond  them  to  account  for  the  effect  produced.  If  you 
place  a  coal  of  fire  on  a  man's  hand,  it  produces  a  certain  effect. 
That  effect  follows  without  fail.  It  foUows  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  thing  done  and  from  the  act  of  doing  it.  It  makes  no 
difference,  whether  we  say  that  the  coal  contains  heat ;  or,  that 
it  burns  in  virtue  of  its  inherent  nature ;  or  that  the  effect  is  pro- 
duced "  ex  opere  operato." 

Of  course  there  are  certain  conditions  necessary  in  order  to  the 
production  of  the  effect.  The  hand  must  be  alive,  otherwise  it  is 
not  the  hand  of  a  man  ;  it  is  simply  a  lump  of  clay.  There 
must  be  no  obstacle.  If  you  interpose  a  porcelain  plate  between 
the  coal  and  the  hand,  the  hand  will  not  be  burnt.  The  coal 
must  be  ignited,  not  simply  a  piece  of  carbon.  So  the  thing 
done  must  be  a  real  sacrament.  It  must  have  everything  essen- 
tial to  the  integrity  of  the  ordinance.  The  coal,  in  the  case  sup- 
posed, must  be  brought  into  contact  with  the  hand  ;  but  whether 
it  be  placed  there  by  the  use  of  a  silver  spoon,  or  of  a  pair  of  iron 
tongs,  makes  no  difference.  So  it  makes  no  difference  whether 
the  priest  who  administers  the  sacrament  be  a  good  man  or  a  bad 
man,  whether  he  be  orthodox  or  heretical.  He  must,  however, 
do  the  thing  ;  and  he  cannot  do  it  without  intending  to  do  it. 
If  the  man's  hand  is  to  be  burnt,  in  a  given  time  and  place,  the 
coal  must  be  intentionally  placed  upon  it. 

Although  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  to  the  way  in 
which  the  sacraments  convey  grace,  seems  to  be  thus  simple, 
there  is  no  little  apparent  diversity  among  the  theologians  of  that 
Church  in  their  views  on  the  subject.  This  diversity,  however,  is 
really  more  in  the  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine,  than  in  the  doc- 
trine itseff.  Lutherans  agree  with  Romanists  in  denying  that  the 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  due  to  the  attending  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  they  agree  with  them  in  attributing  to  them 
an  inherent  supernatural  power.  The  main  point  of  difference 
between  them  is  that  the  Lutherans  insist  on  the  presence  and 
exercise  of  faith  in  the  recipient.     According  to  them  the  sacra- 


§  4.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   EFFICACY.  511 

ments  convey  grace  only  to  believers.  Whereas  Romanists,  as 
understood  by  Lutherans  and  indeed  by  all  Protestants,  deny 
this  necessity  of  faith  or  of  good  dispositions  in  order  to  the 
due  efficacy  of  the  sacraments.  This,  however,  Bellarmin  pro- 
nounces a  deliberate  falsehood  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants ; 
and  he  uses  language  on  this  subject  which  Luther  himself 
might  have  employed,  "Est  merum  mendacium,"  he  says,  "  quod 
Catholici  dicant,  sacramenta  prodesse  peccatoribus :  omnes  enim 
Catholic!  requirunt  poenitentiam,  tanquam  dispositionem  ad  gra- 
tiam  recipiendam."  "  Falsum  est  Catholicos  non  habere  pro 
obice  incredulitatem  :  omnes  enim  Catholici  requirunt  necessario 
in  adultis  actualem  fidem,  et  sine  ea  dicunt  neminem  justificari."^ 
"  Voluntas,  fides,  et  poenitentia  in  suscipiento  adulto  necessario 
requiruntur,  ut  dispositiones  ex  parte  subjecti,  non  ut  causas 
activse :  non  enim  fides  et  poenitentia  efficiunt  gratiam  sacra- 
mentalem,  neque  dant  efficaciam  sacramento;  sed  solum  tollunt 
obstacula  quas  impedirent,  ne  sacramenta  suam  efficaciam  exer- 
cere  possent ;  unde  in  pueris,  ubi  non  requiritur  dispositio,  sine 
his  rebus  fit  justificatio."  ^  Luther  would  not  agree  with  this 
last  clause  about  infants ;  but  to  the  rest  of  the  paragraph  he 
could  hardly  object.  Then  follows  in  Bellarmin  the  illustration 
quoted  above.^  Fire  does  not  owe  its  efficacy  to  the  dryness  of 
the  wood ;  nevertheless  the  dryness  is  a  necessary  condition  of 
combustion. 

In  another  passage  Bellarmin  is  still  more  explicit :  "  Igitur 
ut  intelligamus,  quid  sit  opus  operatum,  notandum  est,  in  justifi- 
catione,  quam  recipit  ahquis,  dum  percipit  sacramenta,  multa 
concurrere ;  nimirum  ex  parte  Dei,  voluntatem  utendi  ilia  re  sensi- 
bili  ;  ex  parte  Christi,  passionem  ejus  ;  ex  parte  ministri  potesta- 
tem,  voluntatem,  probitatem ;  ex  parte  suscipientis  voluntatem, 
fidem,  et  poenitentiam  ;  denique  ex  parte  sacramenti  ipsam  ac- 
tionem externam,  quse  consurgit,  ex  debita  applicatione  formae 
et  materias.  Caaterum  ex  his  omnibus  id,  quod  active,  et  proxime 
atque  instrumentaliter  efficit  gratiam  justificationis,  est  sola  actio 
ilia  externa,  quae  sacramentum  dicitur,  et  hrec  vocatur  opus 
operatum,  accipiendo  passive  (operatum)  ita  ut  idem  sit  sacra- 
mentum conf erre  gratiam  ex  opere  operato,  quod  conferre  gratiam 
ex  [vi]  ipsius  actionis  sacramentalis  a  Deo  ad  hoc  institute,  non 
ex  merito  agentis  vel  suscipientis."  * 

1  Bellarmin,  De  Sacramentis,  i.  2;   Disputationes,  Paris,  1603,  vol.  iii.  p.  G,  b,  c. 
a  Ibid.  II.  i. ;  pp.  108,  d,  109,  a.  8  ggg  p.  490. 

*  De  Sacramentis  in  genere,  ii.  i. ;  ut  supra,  p.  108,  c. 


612  PART   III.     Ca.  XX. —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

Notwithstanding  all  this  the  Romanists  do  teach  the  very  doc- 
trine which  the  Reformers  charged  upon  them,  and  which  the 
Protestant  Symbols  so  strenuously  condemn.     This  is  clear, — 

1.  Because  the  same  words  do  not  always  mean  the  same  thing. 
Bellarmm  says  that  Romanists  teach  that  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
recipient  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  adults.  Protestants  say  the  same  thing  ;  and 
yet  their  meaning  is  entirely  different.  By  faith,  Protestants 
mean  saving  faith ;  that  faith  which  is  one  of  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  which,  if  a  man  has,  his  salvation  is  certain.  Romanists, 
however,  mean  by  faith  mere  assent,  which  a  man  may  have,  and 
be  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  perish  forever.  This  is  their 
formal  definition  of  faith,  as  given  by  Bellarmin  himself ;  and  the 
Council  of  Trent  pronounces  accursed  those  who  say  that  the 
assent  given  by  unrenewed  men  to  the  truth,  is  not  true  faith. 
Romanists  do  not  hold  that  sacraments  convey  grace  to  avowed 
atheists  or  professed  infidels ;  but  that  they  exert  saving  power 
on  those  having  the  kind  of  faith  in  the  Church  which  the  bandits 
of  Italy  profess  and  cherish.  So  also  the  repentance  required  is 
not  the  godly  sorrow  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  but  that  re- 
morse which  wicked  men  often  experience.  These  points  have 
been  abundantly  proved  in  the  preceding  pages. ^  A  coal  of  fire 
will  burn  a  man's  hand  ;  it  is  true  the  man  must  be  alive,  but 
whether  he  is  a  good  or  bad  man  makes  no  difference.  The  sacra- 
ments confer  grace  by  their  inlierent  efficacy.  It  is  true  the  re- 
cipient must  be  a  believer  ;  but  whether  he  has  what  St.  Peter 
calls  "  the  precious  faith  of  God's  elect,"  or  the  same  kind  of  faith 
that  Simon  Magus  had,  makes  no  difference. 

2,  That  this  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  evi- 
dent from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  presented  by  its  leading  the- 
ologians. This  appears  from  the  great  distinction  which  they 
make  between  the  sacraments  of  the  Old,  and  those  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  former  only  signified,  the  latter  confer  grace 
The  latter  are  effectual  "  ex  opere  operato ; "  the  former,  as 
Thomas  Aquinas  says,  were  effectual  only  "  ex  fide  et  devotione 
suscipientis."  Again,  the  necessity  of  anything  good  in  the  re- 
cipient is  expressly  denied.  Thus  Gabriel  Biel  (11495)  says  : 
"  Sacramentum  dicitur  conferre  gratiam  ex  ojoere  operato,  ita  quod 
ex  eo  ipso,  quod  opus  illud,  puta  sacramentum,  exhibitur,  nisi  im- 
pediat  obex  peccati  mortalis,  gratia  confertur  utentibus ;  sic  quod 
praeter  exhibitionem  signi  foris  exhibiti  non  requiritur  bonus  motus 

1  See  above,  the  chapter  on  Faith. 


§4.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   EFFICACY.  CIj 

seu  devotio  interioi"  in  suscipiente."  ^  In  like  manner  also  Duns 
Scotus  declares,^  "  prajter  istam  (primam  causam  mevitoriam 
sc.  Christum)  non  oportet  dare  aliam  intrinsecam  in  recipiente, 
qua  conjungatur  Deo,  antequam  recipiat  gratiam ; "  and  Petrus 
de  Palude,^  "  In  sacramentis  novae  legis  non  per  se  requiritur, 
quod  homo  se  disponat :  ergo  per  ipsum  saeramentum  disponitur." 
The  later  Romish  theologians  teach  the  same  doctrine.  Thus 
Klee  *  says  that  the  sacraments,  when  rightl}'^  dispensed,  are  of 
necessity  effectual.  And  Moehler  says :  "  The  Catholic  Church 
teaches  that  the  sacrament  works  in  us,  in  virtue  of  its  char- 
acter as  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  appointed  for  our  salvation 
('  ex  opere  operato,  scl.  a  Christo,'  instead  of  '  quod  operatus  est 
Christus '),  i.  e.,  the  sacraments  bring  from  the  Saviour  a  divine 
power,  which  can  be  caused  by  no  human  frame  of  mind  (Stim- 
mung),  nor  by  any  spiritual  state  or  effort,  but  which  is  given  by 
God  for  Christ's  sake  directly  in  the  sacrament."^  It  is  true,  he 
immediately  adds,  "  Man  must  receive  them,  and  must  be  sus- 
ceptible of  their  impression,  and  this  susceptibility  expresses  itself 
in  repentance,  in  sorrow  for  sin,  in  longing  for  divine  help,  and 
in  trusting  faith  ;  nevertheless  he  can  only  receive  them,  and 
hence  only  have  the  requisite  susceptibility."  All  this,  however, 
according  to  the  Romish  system,  the  unrenewed  man  has,  or  may 
have.  In  the  case  of  infants  there  is  nothing  but  passivity :  sim- 
ple non-resistance  ;  and  this  is  all  that  is  required  in  the  case  of 
adults. 

3.  One  of  the  points  of  controversy  between  the  Jansenists  and 
Jesuits  related  to  this  very  subject.  The  Jansenists  maintained 
that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  depended  on  the  inward  state 
of  the  recipient.  If  he  were  not  in  a  state  of  grace,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  faith  when  they  were  received,  they  availed  nothing. 
This  doctrine  the  Jesuits  controverted,  and  their  influence  pre- 
vailed in  the  Church.  Jansenism  was  condemned  and  sup- 
pressed. 

4.  Another  argument  is  derived  from  the  constant  practice  of 
the  Romish  Church.  There  is  no  pretence  of  her  recognized 
ministers  demanding  the  profession,  or  evidence  of  what  Protes- 
tants understand  by  saving  faith  in  order  to  the  reception  of  the 

1  Collecforium  in  IV.  Libros  Senfentinrum,  lib.  iv.  dis.  1,  qii.  3;  Basle,  1508,  by  count, 
p.  14,  b,  of  the  text  of  book  iv. 

2  In  Lib.  IV.  Sentent.,  lib.  iv.  dis.  4.  qu.  2;  Venice,  150(5,  by  count,  p.  34,  b,  of  book  iv. 

3  In  his  commentary  on  the  Sentences,  lib.  iv.  dis.  ],  qii.  1  ;  Paris,  1514,  by  count,  p.  4, 
a.  b,  of  book  iv. 

4  Borjmatik,  SpecicUe  Dorpnafi/c,  in.  ii    1,  §  7;  ^Mainz,  1835,  vol.  iii.  p.  95. 

5  SymboUk  odtr  Darstellmuj  der  doc/matischen  Ge<jensdtze  der  Kathol'iken  und  Proies- 
tanten;  von  Dr.  J.  A.  Mcihler,  iv.  §  28;  6th  ed.  Mainz,  1843,  p.  255. 

vou  III.  33 


514  PART   III.     Cn.   XX.— THE   MEAXS    UF    GRACE. 

sacraments,  or  as  the  condition  of  their  sanctifymg  influence.  On 
the  contrary,  they  act  on  the  principle,  that  the  sacraments  confer 
grace  in  the  first  instance.  They  baptize  crowds  of  uninstructed 
heathen,  without  the  slightest  pretence  that  they  are  penitents  or 
believers.  If  faith  be  a  fruit  of  regeneration,  and  if,  as  Roman- 
ists all  teach,  regeneration  is  effected  in  baptism,  how  can  the 
presence  of  faith  in  the  recipient  be  a  condition  of  the  efficacy  of 
baptism.^ 

The  Administrator. 

Lutherans  and  Reformed  agree  in  teaching,  first,  that  the  eflGl- 
cacy  of  the  sacraments  does  not  depend  on  anything  in  him  who 
administers  them  ;  and  second,  that  as  the  ministry  of  the  Word 
and  sacraments  are  united  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  a  matter  of 
order  and  propriety  that  the  sacraments  should  be  administered 
by  those  only  who  have  been  duly  called  and  appointed  to  that 
service.  In  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,'-^  therefore,  it  is  said, 
"  Baptisraus  pertinet  ad  officia  ecclesiastica."  According  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,^  "  There  be  only  two  sacraments  or- 
dained by  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel.  That  is  to  say,  bap- 
tism and  the  supper  of  the  Lord  :  neither  of  which  may  be 
dispensed  by  any,  but  by  a  minister  of  the  Word,  lawfully  or- 
dained." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  thus  stated  by  Hol- 
laz  :  "  Jus  dispensandi  sacramenta  Deus  concredidit  ecclesijE,  quae 
exsecutionem  aut  exercitium  hujus  juris,  observandi  ordinis  et 
evo-xrji^oo-vvrj'i  causa  comniendavit  ministris  verbi  divini  vocatis  et 
ordinatis.  In  casu  autem  extrenuc  necessitatis,  ubi  sacramentum 
est  necessarium  nee  nisi  periculo  salutis  omitti  potest,  quilibet 
homo  Christianus  (laicus  aut  femina)  sacramentum  initiationis 
vahde  celebrare  potest."  '^  This  is  considered  as  not  inconsistent 
with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  says  :  ^  "  De  ordine  ecclesi- 
astico  docent,  quod  nemo  debeat  in  ecclesia  publice  docere,  aut 
sacramenta  administrare,  nisi  rite  vocatus." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  this  sul)ject  is  briefly 
stated  in  the  canons  enacted  during  the  seventh  session  of  the 

1  See  Historischcr  Jnhanij  tiber  (lid  Wblsamkeit  tier  Sacrnmente  "ex  opere  opernto," 
vol.  ii.  §  107,  p.  .3fi3,  of  Ki  liner's  Symholik.  Ki  liner  comes  to  t;ie  conclusion  that  there  is 
no  great  difference  between  the  Lnthoran  and  Komish  doctrines  on  theefficacj'  of  the  sacra- 
ments; a  conclusion  in  conflict  with  the  conviction  of  Luther  and  his  associates. 

2  XX. ;  Niemej'er,  Colleclio  Confessiunum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  518. 
8  Chap,  xxvii.  4. 

4  Examen,  in.  ii.  3,  qurcst.  C;  edit.  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  518. 
6  I.  14;  Uasc,  I.ibri  SymhoUci,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  184G,  p.  13. 


§4.]  THE    SACllAMENTS.     THEIR   EFFICACY.  515 

Council  of  Trent.^  We  read  thus  :  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  Cliristianos 
omnes  in  verbo,  et  omnibus  sacramentis  administrandis  habere 
potestatem  ;  anathema  sit."  The  Council  say  in  "all"  the  sacra- 
ments ;  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  although  denying  the  power  of 
any  but  canonically  ordained  priests  to  render  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments  efficacious,  admits  of  the  efficacy  of  lay  baptism. 
Again,  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  in  ministi-is,  dum  sacramentis  conficiimt, 
et  conferunt,  non  requiri  intentionem  salteni  faciendi,  quod  facit 
ecclesia ;  anathema  sit."  Intention  is  defined  to  be  the  purpose  of 
doing  what  Christ  ordained  and  what  the  Church  is  accustomed  to 
do.  On  this  subject  Bellarmin  says,  (1.)  It  is  not  necessary 
(in  baptism  at  least)  that  the  administrator  should  have  an  intel- 
ligent intention  of  doing  what  the  Church  does ;  for  he  may  be 
ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  ;  all  that  is  required  is 
that  he  intend  to  administer  a  Church  ordinance.  (2.)  It  is  not 
necessary  that  he  intend  to  do  what  the  Church  of  Rome  does  ; 
but  what  the  true  Church,  whatever  that  may  be,  is  accustomed 
to  do.  Hence,  he  says,  the  Catholic  Church  does  not  rebaptize 
those  who  have  been  baptized  by  the  Geneva  churches.  "  Non 
toUit  efficaciam  sacramenti  error  ministri  circa  ecclesiam,  sed  de- 
fectus  intentionis."  (3.)  That  not  actual  intention,  but  only  vir- 
tual, is  required.  "  Virtualis  dicitur,  cum  actualis  intentio  in 
prsesenti  non  adest  ob  aliquam  evagationem  mentis,  tamen  paulo 
ante  adfuit  et  in  virtute  illius  sit  operatio."  ^  On  this  account 
the  Roman  Catechism  says,  that  baptism  administered  by  a  here- 
tic, a  Jew,  or  a  heathen,  is  efficacious :  "  Si  id  efficere  propositum 
eis  fuerit,  quod  ecclesia  Catholica  in  eo  administrationis  genere 
efficit."^  This  agrees  with  the  popular  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
intention,  The  administrator  must  intend  to  produce  the  effect 
which  the  sacrament  was  designed  to  accomplish.  If  he  baptizes, 
he  must  intend  to  regenerate  ;  if  he  absolves,  he  must  intend  to 
absolve  ;  if  he  consecrates  the  bread  and  wine,  he  nmst  intend 
their  •transmutation  ;  if  he  offers  the  host,  he  must  intend  it  as  a 
sacrifice  ;  and  if  offered  for  a  particular  person,  he  must  intend  it 
to  take  effect  for  his  benefit.  According  to  this  view  everything 
depends  on  the  will  of  the  officiating  priest. 

1  Sess.  vii. ;   Canoncs  dc  Sacnunantis  in  genere,  10,  11;  Stveitwolf,  vol.  i.  }).  40. 

2  Bellarmin,  De  Sacramentis  in  genere,  i.  xxvii.;  Disputatiunes,  edit.  Paris,  1G08,  vol 
iii.  pp.  94,  d,  95. 

8  Catechisimis  Eomanus,  ii.  ii.  18  (xxii.  24) ;  Streitwolf ,  Libri  StjmboUci,  vol.  i.  p.  270. 


616         PART  III.     Cn.    XX.  -  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 


§  5.   The  Necessity  of  the  Sacraments. 
The  distinction  between  the  necessity  of  precept  and  the  ne- 

/  cessity  of  means,  is  obvious  and  important.     No  one  would  be 
\    willing  to  say,  without  qualification,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  obey 

\  an  explicit  command  of  Christ.  And  as  He  has  commanded  his 
disciples  to  baptize  all  who  are  received  as  members  of  his 
Church,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy , 
Ghost,  and  required  his  disciples  statedly  to  commemorate  his 
death  by  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  strongest 
moral  obligation  rests  upon  his  people  to  obey  these  commands. 
But  the  obligation  to  obey  any  command,  such  as  to  observe  the 
Sabbath,  to  visit  the  sick,  and  to  relieve  the  poor,  depends  on 
circumstances.  No  opportunity  may  be  offered  ;  or  the  discharge 
of  the  duty  may  be  hindered  by  external  circumstances  ;  or  w^e 
may  lack  the  ability  to  render  the  service  required.  So  with 
regard  to  the  command  to  be  baptized  and  to  commemorate  the 

f  Lord's  death  at  his  table,  it  is  evident  that  many  circumstances 

7  may  occur  to  prevent  obedience  even  on  the  part  of  those  who 
have  the  disposition  and  purpose  to  do  whatever  their  Lord  re- 

/  quires  at  their  hands.  And  even  where  obedience  is  not  pre- 
vented by  external  circumstances,  it  may  be  prevented  by  igno  - 
■  ranee,  or  by  unfounded  scruples  of  conscience. 
i  By  the  necessity  of  means  is  usually  understood  an  absolute 
necessity,  a  "  sine  qua  non."  In  this  sense  food  is  a  necessity  of 
Hfe  ;  light  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  vision  ;  the  Word  is 
necessary  to  the  exercise  of  faith,  for  it  is  its  object,  the  thing 
which  is  to  be  believed ;  and  faith  is,  on  the  part  of  adults,  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  for  it  is  the  act  of  receiving  the  grace  of  God 
offered  in  the  Bible.  And  therefore  times  almost  without  num- 
ber, it  is  said  in  Scripture,  that  we  are  saved  by  faith,  that  he 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  that  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
not  see  hfe. 

The  question  between  the  Reformed  on  the  one  liand,  and 
Lutherans  and  Romanists  on  the  other,  is  in  which  of  these 
senses  are  the  sacraments  necessary.  According  to  the  Reformed- 
they  have  the  necessity  of  precept.  The  use  of  them  is  enjoined 
as  a  duty  ;  but  they  are  not  necessary  means  of  salvation.  Men 
may  be  saved  without  them.  The  benelits  which  they  signify 
and  which  they  are  the  means  of  signifying,  sealing,  and  apply- 
ing to  believers,  are  not  so  tied  to  their  use  that  those  benefits  can- 
not be  secured  without  them.     Sins  may  be  forgive  i,  :ind  the  soul 


§  5.J  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  NECESSITY.  517 

regenerated  and  saved,  though  neither  sacrament  has  ever  been 
received.  The  Lutherans  and  Romanists,  on  the  other  hand, 
hold  that  the  sacraments  are  necessary  means  of  grace,  in  the 
sense  that  the  grace  which  they  signify  is  not  received  otherwise 
than  in  their  use.  There  is  no  remission  of  sin  or  regeneration 
without  baptism  ;  no  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
to  our  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace,  without  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and,  according  to  Romanists,  no  forgiveness  cf 
post-baptismal  sins  -without  priestly  absolution  ;  no  grace  of  orders 
without  canonical  ordination  ;  and  no  special  preparation  for 
death  without  extreme  unction.  This  question  is  of  importance 
chiefly  in  reference  to  baptism,  and  will  therefore  come  up  when 
that  sacrament  is  under  consideration.  At  present  it  is  only  the 
general  teachings  of  these  several  churches  that  need  be  referred 
to.  The  "  Consensus  Tigurinus  "  is  the  most  carefully  considered 
and  cautiously  worded  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 
in  relation  to  the  sacraments,  belonging  to  the  period  of  the  Ref- 
ormation. It  was  drawn  up  to  settle  the  differences  on  this  sub- 
ject between  the  churches  of  Geneva  and  those  of  Zurich.  It 
contains  the  statements  in  reference  to  the  sacraments  to  which 
both  parties  agreed.  It  teaches^  (1.)  That  the  sacraments  are 
"  notas  ac  tesserae "  of  Christian  fellowship  and  brotherhood ; 
incitements  to  gratitude,  faith,  and  a  holy  life,  and  "  syngraphas  " 
binding  us  thereto.  They  were  ordained  especially  that  therein 
God  might  testify,  represent,  and  seal  to  us  his  grace.  (2.)  The 
things  signified  are  not  to  be  separated  from  the  signs.  Those 
who  by  faith  receive  the  latter  receive  also  the  former.  (3.)  That 
respect  is  to  be  had  rather  to  the  promise  to  which  our  faith  is 
directed;  for  the  elements  without  Christ  "nihil  sint  quam  inanes 
larvae."  (4.)  The  sacraments  confer  nothing  "  propria  eorum 
virtute ; "  God  alone  works  in  us  by  his  Spirit.  They  are  organs 
or  means  by  which  God  efficaciously  operates.  (5.)  They  are 
sometimes  called  seals,  but  the  Spirit  alone  is  properly  the  seal 
as  well  as  the  beginner  and  finisher  of  our  faith.  (G.)  God  does 
not  operate  in  all  who  receive  the  sacraments,  but  only  in  his 
own  chosen  people.  (7.)  Hence  the  doctrine  is  to  be  rejected 
that  the  sacraments  convey  grace  to  all  who  do  not  oppose  the 
obstacle  of  mortal  sin.  The  grace  of  God  is  not  so  bound  to  the 
signs,  that  all  who  have  the  latter  have  the  former.  (8.)  Believ- 
ers receive  -without  the  sacraments  the  blessings  which  they  re- 
ceive in  their  use.     "  Extra  eorum  usum  fidelibus  constat,  quae 

1  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig.  1840,  pp.  193-195. 


518    PART  III.  Ch.  XX.  — the  means  OF  GRACE. 

illic  figuratur  A^eritas."  Paul  received  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  sins  ;  but  his  sins  were  remitted  before  he  was  baptized.  Bap- 
tism was  to  Cornelius  the  laver  of  regeneration,  but  he  had  re- 
ceived the  Spirit  before  he  was  thus  externally  washed.  In  the 
Lord's  Supper  we  receive  Christ,  but  Christ  dwells  in  every  be- 
liever, and  we  must  have  faith  before  we  can  acceptably  approach 
the  table  of  the  Lord.  (9.)  The  benefit  of  the  sacraments  is 
not  confined  to  the  time  in  which  they  are  administered  or  re- 
ceived. God  often  regenerates  long  after  baptism  those  baptized 
in  infancy  ;  some  in  early  youth,  some  in  old  age.  The  benefit 
of  baptism,  therefore,  continues  through  the  whole  life,  because 
the  promise  signified  therein  continues  always  in  force. 

As  1;o  the  Lutheran  doctrme  on  this  subject,  Guerike  says  that 
the  three  churches,  the  Greek,  Roman,  and  Lutheran,  "  are  agreed 
in  holding  that  in  the  sacraments  the  visible  signs  as  such  really 
convey  the  invisible  divine  things,  and  therefore,  that  a  participa- 
tion of  the  sacraments  is  necessary  in  order  to  a  participation  of 
the  heavenly  gifts  (grittliche  Sache)  therein  contained.  While  on 
the  contrary  the  Reformed  Church  teaches  that  the  visible  signs 
as  such  do  not  convey  the  invisible  grace,  and  that  the  Christian 
can  by  faith  receive  the  same  divine  benefits  without  the  use  of 
the  sacraments,  and  consequently  that  the  sacraments  are  not  ab- 
solutely necessary,  much  less  the  middle  point  of  the  Christian 
plan  of  salvation."  ^  The  language  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols 
justifies  this  strong  language  of  Guerike.  Thus  t;lie  signers  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,^  "  Daninant  Anabaptistas  qui  impro- 
bant  baptismum  puerorum  et  affirmant  pueros  sine  baptismo  salvos 
fieri."  And  in  the  comment  on  that  article  in  the  "  Apology  for 
the  Confession,"  it  is  said,^  "  Nonus  articulus  approbatus  est,  in 
quo  confitemur,  quod  baptismus  sit  necessarius  ad  salutem,  et 
quod  pueri  sint  baptizandi,  et  quod  baptismus  puerorum  non  sit 
irritus,  sed  necessarius  et  efficax  ad  salutem."  The  Lutheran 
theologians,  however,  in  treating  of  the  necessity  of  baptism, 
make  a  distinction  between  adults  and  infants.  With  regard  to 
the  former,  regeneration  should  precede  baptism.  In  reference  to 
them,  the  design  of  baptism  is  to  seal  and  confirm  the  grace 
already  received.  Li  regard  to  infants  it  is  the  organ  or  means 
of  regeneration.  Thus  Baler  says  :  "*  "  Hie  autem,  quod  ad 
finem  proximum  attlnet,  diversitas  occiirrit,  respectii  subject  orum 

1  SijmhoUk,  p.  ;J74. 

2  Par.  I.  ix.  3;  Hase,  Libri  SymhoUci,  3d  edit.  Leipzij;,  IS-IG,  p.  12. 
8  Aj)olof/ia,  iv.  51;  Ibid.  p.  156. 

*  Compendium  Thcologia  Positivm,  iii,  x.  10;  edit.  Frankfort  and  Leipzig,  1739,  p.  648 


§5.]  THE   SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  NECESSITY.  519 

diversorura.  Nam  infaiitibus  qiiidem  tieque  omnibus  per  baptis- 
mum  j)rimum  confertur  et  obsignatur  fides,  per  quam  meritum 
Christi  illis  applicetur  :  A.dultis  vero  illis  tantum,  qui  fidem  ex 
verbo  conceperunt  ante  baptismi  susceptionem,  baptismus  earn 
obsignat  et  confirmat."  So  also  Gerhard  says  :  "  Infantibus 
baptismus  principaliter  est  medium  ordinarium  regenerationis  ot 
mundationis  a  peccatis,  etc.  Secundario  autem  sigillum  justitiae 
et  fidei  confirmatio  ;  adultis  credentibus  baptismus  principaliter 
praestat  usum  obsignationis  ac  testificationis  de  gratia  Dei,  vU6c(TLa 
et  vita  ffiterna  ;  sed  minus  principaliter  renovationem  et  dona 
Spiritus  Sancti  auget.  Infantes,  per  baptismum  primitias  Spiri- 
tus  et  fidei  accipiunt :  adulti  qui  per  verbum  primitias  fidei  et 
Spiritus  Sancti  acceperunt,  per  baptismum  incrementa  ejusdem 
consequuntur."  ^ 

Tlie  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  this  subject  is,  not 
that  all  the  seven  sacraments  are  necessary  to  salvation,  but  that 
each  is  necessary  to  the  reception  of  the  gift  or  grace  which  it  is 
intended  to  convey.  There  can  be  no  "grace  of  orders  "  without 
canonical  ordination,  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  every  man  should 
be  ordained.  The  sacrament  of  penance  is  necessary  only  in 
the  case  of  post-baptismal  sin,  and  even  the  eucharist,  which 
they  regard  as  far  the  greatest  of  their  sacraments  "  in  dignity 
and  mystery,"  is  not  necessary  to  infants.  Baptism,  however, 
being  the  only  channel  through  which  remission  of  sins  and  re- 
generation are  conveyed,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation. 
And  priestly  absokition  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  remission 
of  sins  committed  after  baptism.  Such  revolting  consequences 
would  flow  from  carrying  this  principle  rigorously  out,  that  Ro- 
manists shrink  from  its  assertion.  It  would  exclude  many  con- 
fessors and  martyrs  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  is,  there- 
fore, taught  that  when  circumstances  render  it  impossible  that 
these  sacraments  can  be  received,  the  purpose  and  desire  to 
receive  them  secure  their  benefits.  These  cases  are,  however, 
exceptions,  and  are  generally  overlooked  in  the  statement  of  the 
doctrine.  This  exception  does  not  apply  to  infants,  and,  there- 
fore, they  cannot  enjoy  its  benefits.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  all  unbaptized  persons  fail  of  eternal  life. 
This  is  included  in  their  idea  of  the  Church.  None  are  saved 
who  are  not  within  the  pale  of  the  true  Church.  None  are 
within  the  pale  of  the  Church  who  have  not  been  baptized,  and 
who  are  not   subject  to  canonical  bishops,  and  especially  to  the 

1  Loci  Theologici,  xxi.  vii.  §  124;  edit.  Tiibingen,  1709,  vol.  ix.  p.  169. 


620       PART  III.    Ch.  XX. —the  mi-:ans  of  grace. 

bishop  of  Rome.  The  unbaptized,  tlierefore,  not  being  in  the 
Chureli,  as  defined  by  Romanists,  are  of  necessit}^  excluded  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  hmguage  of  the  Roman  standards  is  perfectly  explicit. 
The  Council  of  Trent  says  :  ^  "Si  quis  dixerit,  non  dari  gratiam 
per  hujusmodi  sacramenta  semper,  et  omnibus,  quantum  est  ex 
parte  Dei,  etiam  si  rite  ea  suscipiant,  sed  aliquando,  et  aliquibus ; 
anathema  sit."  And  again  :  ^  "Si  quis  dixerit  baptismum  libe- 
rum  esse,  hoc  est  non  necessarium  ad  salutem  ;  anathema  sit." 
In  the  Roman  Catechism^  we  find  the  following :  "  Estne  Baptis- 
mus  ad  salutem  omnibus  necessarius  ?  "  the  answer  is  :  "Sed  cum 
ceterarum  rerum  cognitio,  quas  hactenus  expositiie  sunt,  fidelibus 
utillissima  habenda  sit,  tum  vero  nihil  magis  necessarium  videri 
potest,  quam  ut  doceantur,  omnibus  hominibus  baptismi  legem 
a  Domino  prasscriptam  esse,  ita  ut,  nisi  per  baptismi  gratiam  Deo 
renascantur,  in  sempiternam  miseriam,  et  interitum  a  parentibus, 
sive  illi  fideles,  sive  infideles  sint,  procreentur."  According  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  therefore,  all  the  unbaptized,  whether  their 
parents  be  believers  or  infidels,  are  doomed  to  eternal  misery  and 
perdition.  With  regard  to  penance,  the  Council  of  Trent  says  :  * 
"  Est  hoc  sacramentum  poenitentiaB  lapsis  post  baptismum  ad  sa- 
lutem necessarium,  ut  nondum  regeneratis  ipse  baptismus."  It 
also  teaches  that  full  confession  of  all  sins  committed  after  bap- 
tism is  "  jure  divino  "  necessary,  because  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
about  to  ascend  into  heaven,  left  his  priests  as  his  vicars,  as 
"  presides  et  judices,"  to  whom  all  mortal  sins,  into  which  Chris- 
tians may  fall,  are  to  be  communicated,  and  who  are  authorized 
to  pronounce  the  sentence  of  remission  or  retention.  It  is  said^ 
moreover,  that  our  Lord  teaches  that  priests,  who  themselves  are 
in  a  state  of  mortal  sin,  in  virtue  of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
given  them  in  ordination,  exercise,  as  ministers  of  Christ,  this 
function  of  remitting  sins,  and  those  err  who  contend  that  wicked 
priests  have  not  this  power.  All  this  is  reiterated  in  the  canons 
and  amplified  and  enforced  in  the  Catechism.-'^ 

In  this  connection  it  is  sufficient  to  remark,  — 

1.  That  the  doctrine  that  the  sacraments  are  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, on  the  ground  that  thej'"  are  the  only  channels  for  convey- 
ing to  men  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption,  is  clearly  contrary 
to  the  express  teachings  of  the  Bible.     The  Scriptures  everywhere 

1  Sess.  vii.,  De  Sacramentis  in  generc,  canon  7;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  39. 

2  Ibid.,  De  Baptismo,  canon  5;  Jbid.  p.  41. 

8  Par.  II.  cap.  ii.  quaes.  25  (31,  xxx.);  Jbid.  p.  274. 

*  Sess.  xiv.  cap.  2 ;  Ibid.  p.  55.  ^  Sess.  xiv.  cap.  5,  6 ;  Jbid. 


\ 


§5.]  THE   SACRAMENTS.     THEIR  NECESSITY.  521 

teach  that  God  looks  upon  the  heart ;  that  He  requires  of  fallen 
men  simplj^  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  repentance  to- 
ward God  as  the  only  indispensable  conditions  of  salvation ;  that 
all  men  have  free  access  to  God,  through  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
to  obtain  at  his  hands  the  remission  of  sins  and  all  the  benefits  of 
redemption  ;  that  they  need  no  intervention  of  priests  to  secure 
for  them  this  access  or  the  communication  of  those  benefits  ;  and 
that  no  external  rites  have  power  in  themselves  to  confer  grace. 
God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever' believeth  on  Him  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting 
life.  He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  condemned  ;  but  he  that 
believeth  not  is  condemned  already.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.  Whosoever  calleth  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved.  Whoso  beheveth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  is  born  of  God.  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken.  It  can- 
not be  that  he  who  truly  believes  the  record  which  God  has  given 
of  his  Son  should  fail  of  eternal  life.  We  become  the  sons  of  God 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  true  we  are  commanded  to  be 
baptized,  as  we  are  commanded  to  confess  Christ  before  men  or 
to  love  the  brethren.  But  these  are  duties  to  which  faith  secures 
obedience  ;  they  are  not  the  means  of  salvation. 

2.  This  ritual  system  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  whole 
genius  of  Christianity.  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  He  requires  those 
who  worship  Him,  to  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Ex- 
ternal rites  are  declared  to  be  nothing.  Circumcision  is  nothing, 
and  uncircumcision  is  nothing.  "  He  is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one 
outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision,  Avhich  is  outward  in  the 
flesh  :  but  he  is  a  Jew,  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter  ;  whose 
praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  (Rom.  ii.  28,  29.)  This  is  not 
merely  a  fact,  but  a  principle.  What  St.  Paul  here  says  of  cir- 
cumcision and  of  Jews,  may  be  said,  and  is  substantially  said  by 
St.  Peter  in  reference  to  baptism  and  Christianit3^  A  man  who 
is  a  Christian  outwardly  only,  is  not  a  Christian  ;  and  the  bap- 
tism which  saves,  is  not  the  washing  of  the  body  with  water,  but 
the  conversion  of  the  soul.  (1  Peter  iii.  21.)  The  idea  that  a 
man's  state  before  God  depends  on  anything  external,  on  birth, 
on  membership  in  any  visible  oi-ganization,  or  on  any  outward 
rite  or  ceremony,  is  utterly  abhorrent  to  the  religion  of  tlie  Bible. 
It  did  not  belong  to  Judaism  except  in  the  corrupt  form  of  Phari- 
saism. It  is  true,  that  under  the  old  dispensation  a  man  could 
not  be  saved  unless  he  belonged  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 


522  PART   in.     Ca.   XX.  -TIIP:   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

and  was  one  of  the  children  of  Abraham.  But  accordins;  to  St. 
Paul  (Rom.  ix.  8  ;  Gal.  iii.  7  and  29),  this  only  meant  that  they 
must  believe  in  Abraham's  God  and  the  promise  of  redemption 
through  his  seed.  If  a  man  of  heathen  birth  and  culture  came  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  believed  the  doctrines  which  God 
had  revealed  to  his  chosen  people,  relied  on  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion through  Christ,  and  purposed  to  obey  the  law  of  God,  then 
he  was  a  Jew  inwardly  and  one  of  Abraham's  seed.  His  circum- 
cision was  only  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
had,  yet  being  uncircumcised."  (Rom.  iv.  11.)  The  doctrine  that 
such  a  man,  notwithstanding  this  thorough  change  in  his  inward 
state  in  knowledge,  conviction,  and  character,  is  under  the  wrath 
and  curse  of  God,  until  a  little  piece  of  flesh  is  cut  from  his  body, 
never  was  a  part  of  the  religion  of  God.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of 
the  religion  of  his  great  adversary.  Any  one,  therefore,  who 
teaches  that  no  man  can  be  saved  without  the  rite  of  baptism, 
and  that  by  receiving  that  rite  he  is  made  a  child  of  God  and  heir 
of  heaven,  is  antichrist,  and  "  even  now  are  there  many  anti- 
christs."    (1  John  ii.  18.) 

3.  This  ritualistic  system,  which  makes  the  sacraments  the  only 
channels  of  grace,  and  consequently  absolutely  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, naturally  leads  to  the  divorce  of  religion  and  morality.  A 
man,  according  to  this  system,  may  be  in  the  true  Church  a  child 
of  God,  and  assured  of  heaven,  and  yet  utterly  frivolous,  worldly, 
and  even  immoral  in  his  inward  and  outAvard  life.  This  is  illus- 
trated on  a  large  scale  in  every  Roman  Catholic  country.  In  such 
countries  some  of  the  greatest  devotees  are  openly  wicked  men. 
And  wherever  this  system  prevails  we  find  its  most  zealous  advo- 
cates among  people  of  the  world,  who  live  at  ease  m  full  security 
of  salvation,  because  they  are  in  the  Church  and  faithful  in  ob- 
serving "  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years ; "  and  are 
punctiliously  "  subject  to  ordinances,  touch  not,  taste  not,  handle 
not."  ^  The  great  question  at  issue  in  the  controversy  with  ritu- 
alism is.  Whether  a  man's  salvation  de])ends  on  his  inward  state, 
or  upon  outward  rites  ;  or,  as  some  would  give  it,  Whether  his 
state  is  determined  by  outward  rites,  or  Avhetlier  the  rites  depend 
for  their  value  and  efficacy  on  his  inward  state.  In  either  form 
the  question  is,  Are  we  saved  by  faith  or  by  sacraments  ?  The 
Apostle  teaches  us  that  "  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision 
availeth  anything  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature."  (Gal. 
vi.  15.^ 

1  A  gentleman  of  discrimination  and  candour,  not  long  since  said  to  a  friend,  "  You  ar« 
▼ery  pious,  but  you  have  no  religion.     I  am  religious,  but  I  have  no  piety." 


§  C]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   VALIDHY.  523 

4.  The  above  remarks  are  not  intended  to  apply,  and  in  fact 
are  not  applicable  to  the  Lutheran  system.  Lutherans  do,  indeed, 
teach  the  necessity  of  the  sacraments,  but  as  they  also  teach  that 
true,  living,  saving  faith  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  their 
eflBcacy  ;  and,  as  they  further  teach  that  in  the  case  of  adults  such 
faith  produced  by  the  Word  precedes  baptism,  they  do  not  make 
baptism  the  ordinary  and  indispensable  channel  for  the  communi- 
cation of  the  saving  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  hold 
that  all  who,  through  the  reading  or  hearing  of  the  Word,  are  led 
to  embrace  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  their  God  and  Saviour,  are 
thereby  made  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  eternal  life.  They 
believe  with  the  Apostle  (Gal.  iii.  26),  that  we  "  are  all  the  chil- 
dren of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  It  is  this  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation by  faith,  or  as  Luther  has  it,  "  by  faith  alone,"  that  has 
saved  the  Lutheran  system  from  the  vims  of  ritualism. 

§  6.    Validity  of  the  Sacraments. 

That  is  valid  which  avails  for  the  end  intended.  The  question, 
therefore,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  is  a  question  as  to 
what  is  necessary  to  their  being  that  which  they  purport  to  be. 
The  answer  to  this  question  is  that  they  must  conform  to  the 
prescriptions  given  in  the  Bible  concerning  them.  The  elements 
employed  must  be  those  which  Christ  ordained.  The  form,  or 
the  manner  in  which  those  elements  are  given  and  received,  must 
be  in  accordance  mth  his  directions ;  and  the  ordinance  must  be 
administered  with  the  intention  of  doing  what  He  has  com- 
manded. Thus  if  baptism  be  a  washing  with  water,  then  it  is 
necessary  that  water  should  be  the  element  employed  in  its  ad- 
ministration. If  it  be  a  washing  with  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  those  words,  or 
that  form,  must  be  used  ;  and  the  ordinance  must  be  administered 
and  received  in  the  faith  of  the  Trinity.  The  general  faith  of 
the  Church  has  been  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  heretical  bap- 
tism ;  but. heresy  was  made  to  include  other  departures  from  the 
standard  of  faith,  than  the  denial  of  the  essential  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel.  Baptism  is  a  Christian  ordinance.  It  involves  on 
the  part  of  both  the  administrator  and  the  recipient  the  profes- 
sion of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the 
same  service,  as  to  matter  and  form,  performed  by  a  heathen  to 
a  heathen,  who  attached  an  entirely  different  meaning  to  what 
was  done,  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  Christian  ordinance. 

The  other  condition  necessary  to  the  vaLi'lity  of  the  sacraments 


524  PART   III.     Ch.    XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

concerns  the  intention  of  those  engaged  in  the  service.  They 
must  intend  to  do  what  Christ  commanded.  If  a  man  receiveo  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  he  must  intend  to  profess  his  faith  in  the 
Gospel  and  to  accept  the  terms  of  salvation  therein  presented. 
And  the  administrator  must  have  the  purpose  to  initiate  the  re- 
cipient into  the  number  of  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ.  A 
sacrament,  therefore,  administered  by  an  idiot,  or  a  maniac,  or  in 
sport,  or  in  mockery,  is  utterly  null  and  void.  It  has  no  mean- 
ing and  is  entirely  worthless. 

The  only  question  on  which  there  is  much  diversity  of  opinion 
on  this  subject,  is.  Whether  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  de- 
pends on  the  official  standing  of  the  person  by  whom  they  are 
administered  ?  We  have  seen  that  Romanists  make  canonical 
ordination  or  consecration  absolutely  essential.  If  any  man  but 
a  bishop  (in  their  sense  of  the  word)  should  confirm  or  ordain, 
notliing  is  done.  The  service  in  either  case  is  an  empty  one,  con- 
veying neither  grace  nor  authority.  If  any  other  than  a  priest 
should  absolve  a  penitent,  no  absolution  takes  place  ;  and  so  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  words  of  consecration  pronounced  by  any 
lips  but  those  of  a  canonically  ordained  priest,  produce  no  change 
in  the  elements.  The  reason  of  this  is,  not  merely  that  the  offi- 
ciator  acts  in  such  cases  disorderly  and  improperly,  but  that  he 
has  neither  the  prerogative  nor  the  power  to  render  the  sacra- 
ments effectual.  They  are  invalid,  because  they  do  not  avail  to 
accomplish  the  end  for  which  they  were  appointed.  Romanists 
are  guilty  of  a  benevolent  inconsistency  in  making  baptism  an 
exception  to  this  rule.  There  is  the  same  logical  or  theoretical 
reason  that  baptism  should  be  invalid  when  administered  by  an 
unordained  person,  as  that  confirmation,  ordination,  or  absolution, 
when  thus  administered,  should  be  null  and  void.  But  as  baptism 
is  held  to  be  essential  to  salvation,  souls  must  often  perish,  when 
a  priest  is  inaccessible,  unless  lay  baptism  be  allowed.  In  cases 
of  such  emergency  the  Church  of  Rome,  therefore,  pronounces 
baptism  to  be  valid  (^i.  e.,  efficacious)  when  administered  by  a 
layman,  a  woman,  or  even  by  a  pagan,  provided  the  adminis- 
trator really  intends  to  baptize,  ^.  e.,  to  do  what  the  Church  cdu- 
templates  in  the  administration  of  that  ordinance. 

The  standards  of  the  Lutheran  and  Retormed  Churches  place 
preaching  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  on 
the  same  ground.  They  teach  (1.)  That  Christ  has  appointed 
certain  officers  in  his  Church.  (2.)  That  by  his  Spirit  he  calls 
and  qualifies  certain  men  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  those 


§  6.]  THE    SACRAMENTS.     THEIR   VALIDITY.  525 

ofl&ces.  (3.)  That  those  who  aspire  to  them  are  to  be  examined 
as  to  their  call  and  qualifications.  (4.)  That  if  found  competent 
they  are  to  be  set  apart  or  ordained  in  an  orderly  manner  to  the 
office  to  which  they  deem  themselves  called.  (5.)  That  the 
special  functions  of  one  class  of  these  officers,  are  preaching  and 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  (6.)  It  follows  from  all  this 
that  for  any  one  not  thus  called  and  ordained  to  undertake  the 
exercise  of  either  of  these  functions  of  the  ministry,  in  a  settled 
state  of  the  Church,  is  wrong  ;  it  is  a  violation  of  the  divinely 
constituted  order  of  Christ's  Church.  According  to  this  view, 
lay  preaching  and  lay  administration  of  the  ordinances  (in  ordi- 
nary circumstances)  are  equally  wrong.  But  are  they  invalid  ? 
That  is  a  very  different  question.  We  know  that  Romanists, 
when  they  pronounce  a  sacrament  invalid,  mean  that  it  is  power- 
less. We  know  that  when  the  old  English  law  pronounced  any 
marriage  invalid  if  not  solemnized  by  a  man  in  holy  orders,  the 
meaning  was,  that  the  ceremony  was  null  and  void  ;  that  the  par- 
ties were  not  married.  But  what  can  be  meant  by  lay  preach- 
ing being  invalid  ?  Is  the  Gospel  invalid  ?  Does  it  lose  its  truth, 
authority,  or  power  ?  This  camiot  be.  Neither  its  authority  nor 
its  power  depend  upon  the  clay  lips  by  which  it  is  proclaimed. 
Again,  if  a  number  of  pious  Christians  assemble,  where  no  min- 
ister can  be  had,  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  what  sense  is 
such  a  service  invalid  ?  Do  they  not  commemorate  the  death  of 
Christ  ?  Are  not  the  bread  and  wine  to  them  the  symbols  of  his 
body  and  blood  ?  If  faith  be  in  exercise,  may  they  not  receive 
those  symbols  to  their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace? 
Again,  if  baptism  be  a  washing  with  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  to  signify  and  seal  our  engrafting  into  Christ,  does 
it  cease  to  be,  or  to  signify  this  if  not  administered  by  an  ordained 
minister  ?  Does  not  the  man  thus  baptized  make  a  profession  of 
his  faith  in  Christ  ?  and  does  he  not  thereby  become  a  member 
of  that  great  body  which  confesses  Him  before  men  ?  Can  it, 
therefore,  be  any  more  invalid  than  the  Gospel,  when  preached  by 
a  layman  ? 

What  the  Bible,  therefore,  seems  to  teach  on  this  subject  is, 
that  Christ  having  appointed  certain  officers  in  his  Church  to 
preach  his  Word  and  to  administer  his  ordinances,  for  any  man, 
under  ordinary  circumstances  not  duly  appointed,  to  assume  the 
functions  of  the  ministry,  is  irregular  and  wrong,  because  con- 
trary to  the  order  of  Christ's  Church.  Further  than  this  the 
Reformed  and  Lutheran  standards  do  not  appear  to  have  gone. 


626       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

§  7.  Baptism. 
"  Baptism  is  a  sacrament,  wherein  the  washing  with  water,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
doth  signify  and  seal  our  engrafting  into  Christ  and  partaking  of 
the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagement  to  be 
the  Lord's."  ^ 

The  Mode  of  Baptism. 

According  to  the  definition  given  above,  baptism  is  a  washing 
with  water.  By  washing  is  meant  any  such  application  of  water 
to  the  body  as  effects  its  purification.  This  may  be  done  by  im- 
mersion, affusion,  or  sprinkling.  The  command,  therefore,  to 
baptize  is  simply  a  command  to  wash  with  water.  It  is  not 
specifically  a  command  to  immerse,  to  affuse,  or  to  sprinkle.  The 
mode  of  applying  water  as  the  purifying  medium  is  unessential. 
The  only  necessary  thing  is  to  make  such  an  application  of  water 
to  the  person,  as  shall  render  the  act  significant  of  the  purification 
of  the  soul. 

The  first  argument  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  ordinance  is 
an  a  priori  one.  As  by  common  consent  the  design  of  the  insti- 
tution is  either  to  symbolize  or  to  effect  the  cleansing  of  the  soul 
from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin,  by  the  blood  and  spirit  of 
Christ,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  washing  with  water,  how- 
ever done,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  the  ordi- 
nance. The  idea  of  purification  is  as  clearly  and  as  frequently 
signified  by  affusion  as  by*immersion.  Besides,  to  make  anything 
so  purely  circumstantial  as  the  manner  in  which  water  is  used  in 
the  act  of  cleansing,  essential  to  a  Christian  sacrament,  which, 
according  to  some,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  others,  is  essential  to  membership  in  the  visible  Church 
of  Christ,  is  opposed  to  the  whole  nature  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  to 
render  Christianity  more  Judaic  than  Judaism,  even  as  understood 
by  the  Pharisees  ;  for  they  purified  themselves,  their  offerings,  and 
holy  places  and  utensils,  by  immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling  as 
was  most  appropriate  or  convenient. 

Use  of  the    Word  in  the   Classics. 

Tlie  second  argument  on  this  subject,  is  drawn  from  the  usage 
of  the  word.     In  the  Classics ;  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  Apoc- 
ryphal writings  of  the  Old  Testament ;  in  the  New  Testament : 
and   in   the    writings   of   the    Greelc   fathers,  the  Avords   (Ba-TOi. 
1   Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  Ques.  94. 


§  7.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   MODE.  52T 

fiaTTTL^w,  and  their  cognates,  are  used  with  such  latitude  of  mean- 
ing, as  to  prove  the  assertion  that  the  command  to  baptize  is  a 
command  to  immerse,  to  be  utterly  unauthorized  and  unreason- 
able. 

Ever  since  the  Reformation  and  the  rise  of  the  Baptists  as  a 
distinct  denomination,  who  hold  that  "  baptizing  is  dipping,  and 
dipping  is  baptizing,"  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  words  in  ques- 
tion has  been  a  matter  of  dispute,  on  which  hundi-eds  of  volumes 
have  been  written.  It  is  evidently  impossible  to  enter  on  that 
discussion  in  these  pages.  All  that  can  be  attempted  is  a  brief 
statement  of  the  conclusions  believed  to  be  established,  while  the 
proofs  on  which  those  conclusions  rest  must  be  sought  in  works 
devoted  to  the  subject.  As  to  the  classic  use  of  the  words  in 
question,  it  is  clear  that  /Sd-Toj  means  (1.)  To  dip.  (2.)  To  dye 
by  dipping.  (3.)  To  dye  without  regard  to  the  mode  in  which 
it  is  done  ;  as  a  lake  is  said  to  be  baptized  {{.  e.,  dyed)  by  the 
blood  shed  in  it ;  a  garment  is  spoken  of  as  baptized  by  colour- 
ing matter  dropping  on  it.  (4.)  It  also  means  to  gild ;  also  to 
glaze,  as  when  earthenware  is  covered  with  any  vitreous  matter. 
(5.)  To  wet,  moisten,  or  wash.  (6.)  To  temper,  as  hot  iron  is 
tempered ;  this  may  be  done  by  plunging  or  pouring.  "•  Tem- 
pered, vTTo  eAatou,"  does  not  mean  plunged  into  oil.  (7.)  To  im- 
bue.     The    mind    is    said   to    be    baptized  with   fantasies ;    not 

plunged  into  them,  for  it  is  vir6  row  (^arraa-Lm^ 

A  man  is  said  to  be  "  imbued  with  righteousness."  This  can- 
not mean  "  dipped."  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  a  command  to 
baptize,  made  in  the  use  of  the  word  /SaTTTw,  cannot  be  limited  to  a 
command  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse. 

As  to  the  classic  use  of  /SaTrrt'tw,  it  means,  (1.)  To  immerse,  or 
submerge.  It  is  very  frequently  used  when  ships  are  spoken  of 
as  sunk  or  buried  in  the  sea.  They  are  then  said  to  be  baptized. 
(2.)  To  overflow  or  to  cover  with  water.  The  sea-shore  is  said 
to  be  baptized  by  the  rising  tide.  (3.)  To  wet  thoroughly,  to 
moisten.  (4.)  To  pour  upon  or  drench.  (5.)  In  any  way  to  be 
overwhelmed  or  overpowered.  Hence  men  are  said  to  be  baptized 
with  wine  (ot  /3€/3a7rrto-/xei'ot  are  the  intoxicated),  with  opium, 
with  debts,  with  puzzling  questions.  Wine  is  said  to  be  baptized 
by  having  water  poured  into  it.^ 

1  There  are  two  recent  American  writers  whose  works  contain  all  that  most  students 
would  be  disposed  to  road  on  this  subject.  The  one  is  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coiiant,  in  bis  book, 
Meanin;/  and  Use  of  the  Word  BtqHizein,  New  York,  18G8;  and  the  other  the  Rev.  James 
W.  Dale,  in  his  Classic  Baptism  ;  Judaic  Baptism ;  and  Jokannic  Baptism  ;  to  be  followed 
by  Christian  Baptism. 

2  Illustrations  of  some  of  these  uses  of  the  word  may  be  found  in  Stephen's  Thesaurut 


623  TART   III.     Cii.   XX. —  THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

The  word  /SaTTTt'Cw,  as  Dr.  Dale  so  strenuously  argues,  belongs 
to  that  class  of  words  which  mdicate  an  effect  to  be  produced 
without  expressing  the  kind  of  action  by  which  that  effect  is  to 
be  brought  about.  In  this  respect  it  is  analogous  to  the  word  "  to 
bury."  A  man  may  be  buried  by  being  covered  up  in  the  gromid ; 
by  being  placed  in  an  empty  cave ;  by  being  put  into  a  sarcoph- 
agus ;  or  even,  as  among  our  Indians,  by  being  placed  upon  a 
platform  elevated  above  the  ground.  The  command  to  bury,  may 
be  executed  in  any  of  these  ways.  So  with  regard  to  the  word 
jSaTTTi^w,  there  is  a  given  effect  to  be  produced,  without  any  specific 
injunction  as  to  the  manner  ;  whether  by  immersion,  pouring,  or 
sprinkling. 

Use  of  the  Words  in  the  Septuagint  mid  Apocrypha. 

These  words  are  of  rare  occurrence  in  the  Greek  version  of 
the  Old  Testament.  In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Second  Kings  we 
have  the  history  of  Naaman  the  Syrian,  who  came  to  the  prophet 
to  be  healed  of  his  leprosy.  And  "  Ehsha  sent  a  messenger  unto 
him,  saying,  Go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven  times  "  (ver.  10). 
"  Then  went  he  down  and  dipped  himself  (eySaTTTt'o-aro)  seven 
times  in  Jordan  "  (ver.  14).  The  only  special  interest  in  this 
passage  is  the  proof  it  affords  that  baptism  and  Avashing  are 
identical.  The  command  to  wash  was  obeyed  by  baptizing  him- 
self. The  Vulgate  does  not  change  the  words  in  the  two  passages, 
*' Vade  et  lavare  septies  in  Jordane  "  (ver.  10).  "  Descendit  et 
lavit  in  Jordane  septies  "  (ver.  14).  The  Septuagint  has  AoOo-ai 
in  verse  10,  and  e/JaTrrto-aro  in  verse  14. 

In  Daniel  iv.  33,  it  is  said  that  the  body  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
"was  wet  (baptized,  ^(3o-4>V^  [LXX.  ver.  30])  with  the  dew  of 
heaven."     Here  the  idea  of  dipping  is  absolutely  precluded. 

The  word  /SdirTw,  when  meaning  to  dip,  does  not  necessarily 
include  the  idea  of  entire  immersion.  A  mere  touch  or  partial 
immersion  is  often  all  the  word  is  intended  to  express  ;  as  in  Le- 
viticus iv.  17 :  "  The  priest  shall  dip  (/3at//€t)  his  finger  in  some 
of  the  blood."  Leviticus  xiv.  G :  "As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall 
take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip  (^/SaKJ/ei^ 
them  and  the  living;  bird  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed 
over  the  running  water."  All  these  things  could  not  be  imraei'sed 
in  the  blood  of  a  bird.  Boaz  said  to  Ruth,  at  meal-time  "  dip 
(/3ai//€is)  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar."    (Ruth  ii.  14.)    Josluia  iii.  15  : 

and  Scapula's  Lexicon,  and  of  all  in  the  works  of  Dr.  Conant  and  Dr.  Dale,  Avho  discusi 
the  bearing  of  each  on  the  matter  in  debate  from  their  respective  stand-point.s. 


§  7.J  BAPTISM.     ITS  MODE.  529 

"  The  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  Q^/Sd- 
^lyo-av)  in  the  brim  of  the  water."  1  Samuel  xiv.  27  :  Jonathan 
"  dipped  "  (€/5at//ei)  the  end  of  the  rod  whicli  was  in  his  hand  "  in 
an  honey-comb."  Psahn  Ixviii.  23  (24),  "  That,  thy  foot  may 
be  dipped  (/Sac^fJ)  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies."  These  exam- 
ples prove  that  even  /Sd-n-TU)^  as  used  in  tlie  Septuagint,  does  not, 
when  it  means  to  dip,  include  the  idea  of  complete  immersion. 

ySaTTTt^co  (according  to  Trommius),  besides  the  passage  already 
quoted  from  2  Kings  v.  14,  occurs  in  the  Septuagmt  only  in  Isaiah 
xxi.  4,  where  the  Greek  is  rj  dvo/xia  /ac  /JaTTTt^et,  "  iniquity  baptizes 
(or  overwhelms)  me."  The  EngUsh  version,  adhering  to  the 
Hebrew,  reads,  "  Fearfulness  affrighted  me."  The  Vulgate  has 
"Tenebrae  stupefecerunt  me."  The  word  occurs  twice  in  the 
Apocrypha,  Judith  xii.  7,  and  Sirach  xxxiv.  27  [xxxi.  25]. 
Wahl,^  referring  to  these  two  passages,  defines  "  /3a7rTo/xat,  me  lavo 
=  vt7rTo/xai,"  "  I  wash  myself."  In  Sirach  the  expression  is,  j^a-ir- 
TiCofjievo's  uTTo  veKpov,  "  baptized  from  a  dead  body,"  i.  e.,  purified 
from  the  uncleanness  contracted  by  touching  a  dead  body.  Or, 
as  Fritzsche  translates  it,  "  Der  sich  wascht  von  einem  Todten, 
einer  Leiche,  sich  reinigt  von  der  Befleckung,  die  ihm  die  Berii- 
hrung  des  Leichn  aus  zugezogen,  vrgl.  4  Moses  xix.  11."^  That 
is,  "  He  that  washes  from  a  corpse  purifies  himself  from  the 
defilement  occasioned  by  touching  it."  We  learn  from  the  pas- 
sage referred  to  for  illustration  (Numbers  xix.  11-13),  that  this 
purification  was  effected  by  sprinkling  the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  (See 
ver.  9,  and  compare  Heb.  ix.  13.)  In  Numbers  xix.  13,  it  is  said, 
"  Whosoever  toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  one  that  is  dead,  and 
purifieth  not  himself,  defileth  the  tabernacle  of  the  LoED ;  and 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel,  because  the  water  of  sepa- 
ration was  not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  shall  be  unclean  ;  his  un- 
cleanness is  yet  upon  him."  The  water  of  separation  was  the 
water  in  which  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  had  been  mingled,  as 
described  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  chapter.  And  it  Avas  the 
sprinkling  of  that  water  which  effected  the  baptism,  or  purifica- 
tion, of  the  defiled  person. 

The  passage  in  Judith  determines  nothing  either  way  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  It  merely  says,  e/5a7rrt^ero  iv  nj  Trape/x^oAjJ 
£7ri  T^s  Trr/yr^s  ToG  {ISaros,  "  shc  baptized  hcrsclf  in  the  camp  at  a 
fountain  of  water."     If  it  be  a  settled  point  that  Pa-mCCoi  always 

1  Claris  Librnntm  V.  T.  Apocvypliorum  PhUoloffica,  Auctore  Christ.  Abrah.  Wahl,  Philos. 
etTheol.  Doctore,  Leipzig,  1853. 

2  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisckes  Ilandbuch  zu  den  Apohryphen  des  Alien  Testamentes,  toj 
Otto  Friclolin  Fritzsche,  Leipzig,  1859,  voL  v.  p.  190. 

VOL.  111.  34 


530    PART  III.  Cii.  XX. —  THE  MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

means  to  immerse,  then  this  passage  asserts  that  Judith  immersed 
herself  in  the  fountain.  But  if,  as  the  vast  majority  of  Chris- 
tians beheve,  the  word  often  means  to  wash,  or  purify,  without 
regard  to  the  way  in  which  the  purification  is  effected,  then  the 
passage  cannot  be  proved  to  assert  anything  more  than  that 
Judith  washed  herself  at  the  fountain.  The  circumstances  of 
the  case  are  all  in  favour  of  the  latter  interpretation.  According 
to  the  narrative,  the  land  had  been  invaded  by  an  immense  host 
of  Assyrians  under  the  command  of  Holofernes.  Resistance 
seemed  hopeless,  and  utter  destruction  was  imminent.  In  this 
emergency  Judith,  a  young,  beautiful,  and  rich  woman,  inflamed 
with  zeal  for  her  country  and  her  religion,  determined  to  make  a 
desperate  effort  for  the  salvation  of  her  people.  For  this  purpose, 
arrayed  to  the  best  advantage,  she  made  her  way  into  the  ene- 
mies' camp  and  presented  herself  to  Holofernes  and  promised  to 
aid  him  in  the  conquest  of  the  land.  The  Assyrian  general,  cap- 
tivated by  her  charms,  treated  her  with  great  favour.  She  re- 
mained undisturbed  in  her  tent  for  three  days,  but  was  permitted 
at  night  to  resort  to  the  fountain  for  purification.  (3n  the  fourth 
day  she  was  invited  to  a  great  feast,  at  which  Holofernes  drank 
to  excess,  so  that  when  the  guests  had  retired  and  the  general 
was  in  a  state  of  helpless  intoxication,  Judith,  with  the  assistance 
of  her  maid,  cut  off  his  head  and  carried  it  to  the  camp  of  hei 
own  people.  This  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrians  and  the 
deliverance  of  the  land. 

The  circumstances  in  this  case  Avhicli  favour  the  assumption 
that  Judith  went  to  the  fountain  not  for  immersion,  but  for  ablu- 
tion," are,  (1.)  It  was  within  the  camp,  necessarily,  for  such  a 
host,  of  large  dimensions.  ■  But  a  camp  filled  with  soldiers  does 
not  seem  to  be  an  appropriate  bathing-place  for  a  lady  of  distinc- 
tion even  at  night.  (2.)  Dr.  Conant  says  :  "  There  was  evi- 
dently no  lack  of  water  for  the  immersion  of  the  body,  after 
the  Jewish  manner,  namely  by  walking  into  the  water  to  the 
proper  depth,  and  then  sinking  down  till  the  whole  body  was 
immersed."  ^  The  probability,  however,  seems  all  the  other  way. 
It  must  have  been  an  extraordinary  fountain,  if  it  allowed,  of 
immersion  in  any  such  way.  If  the  word  /^a^rrt'tw  can  only  mean 
"  to  immerse,"  these  considerations  amount  to  nothing.  But  if 
the  word  means  to  wash  or  to  purify  as  well  as  to  immerse,  then 
the}'^  are  of  sufficient  weight  to  turn  the  scale  in  favour  of  the 
former  explanation.  Of  itself,  however,  the  passage  proves  noth- 
ing. 

1-  Meaning  and  Use  of  Baptizein,  New  York,  1808,  p.  85. 


§7.J  BAPTISM.     ITS   MODE.  531 

The  New  Testament  Usage. 
The  word  /Sdwreii'  is  used  four  times  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
no  one  of  which  does  it  express  the  idea  of  entire  immersion.     In 
Luke  xvi.  24,  "  That  he  may  dip  (^a^j?)  the  tip  of  his  finger  in 
water."     The  finger,  when  dipped  in  water,  is  not  submerged. 
When  placed  horizontally  on  the  water  and  slightly  depressed,  it 
retains  more  of  the  moisture  than  if  plunged  perpendicularly  into 
it.     John  xiii.  26,  speaks  twice  of  dipping  the  sop  (^Sui/^as  and 
€/x/?a</.as).     But  a  morsel  held  in  the  fingers,  is  only  partly  im- 
mersed.    In  Revelation  xix.  13,  the  words  -epi^e^ATy/xeVos  ^artov 
(3epaij.ixivov  aifxari  obviously  mean  '  clothed  with  a  vesture  stained 
or  dyed  with  blood.'    The  allusion  is  probably  to  Isaiah  Ixiii.  1  ff. : 
"  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from 
Bozrah?  ....  Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine   apparel,  and 
thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine-fat  ?     I  have 
trodden  the  ^vine-press  alone  ;  ....  and  their  blood  shall  be 
sprinkled  upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment." 
In  this  case,  therefore,  the  baptism  was  by  sprinkling.     BaTrnto) 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  about  eighty  times  ;  f^dTrnafxa  some 
twenty  times ;  and  ^aTrrtcr/xos  four  times.     As  every  one  admits 
that  baptism  may  be  effected  by  immersion,  and  as  the  purifica- 
tions under  the  Old  Testament  (called  by  the  Apostle,  Hebrews 
ix.  10,  in  Greek,  "  diverse  baptisms  ")  were  effected  by  immer- 
sion, affusion,  and  sprinkling,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  in 
some  of  these  numerous  passages,  the  baptism  spoken  of  necessa- 
rily implied  immersion.     It  so  happens,  or,  it  has  been  so  ordered, 
however,  that  there  is  no  such  passage  in  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament.     The  places  in  which  these  words  occur  may  be  ar- 
ranged in  the  following  classes  :  (1.)  Those  in  which,  taken  by 
themselves,   the  presumption  is  in  favour   of   immersion.     (2.) 
Those  in  which  the  idea  of  immersion  is  necessarily  excluded. 
(3.)  Those  which  in  themselves  are  not  decisive,  but  where  the 
presumption  is  altogether  in  favour  of  affusion. 

To  the  first  class  belong  those  passages  wliich  speak  of  the 
persons  baptized  going  into  (eh)  the  water,  and  '^  coming  up  out 
of  the  water."  (Matt.  iii.  16  ;  Acts  viii.  38,  39.)  Such  pas- 
sages, however,  must  be  isolated  in  order  to  create  a  presumption 
in  favour  of  immersion.  According  to  ancient  accounts,  the  com- 
mon way  of  baptizing  was  for  the  person  to  step  into  water,  -^vhen 
water  was  poured  on  his  head,  and  then  he  came  up  out  of  the 
water,  not  in  the  least  incommoded  by  dripping  garments.     And 


582       PAirr  iii.   Cn.  xx.  — the  means  of  grace. 

when  we  remember  that  it  is  said  concerning  John,  that  "  Then 
went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins  "  (Matt.  iii.  5,  6),  it  seems  physically  impossible 
that  he  should  have  immersed  all  this  multitude.  When  all  the 
circmnstances  are  taken  into  view,  the  presumption  in  favour  of 
immersion,  even  in  this  class  of  passages,  disappears. 

2.  The  second  class  of  passages,  those  from  which  the  idea  of 
immersion  is  excluded,  includes  all  those  which  relate  to  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is  frequently  said  to  be  poured 
out  on  men  ;  but  men  are  never  said  to  be  dipped  or  immersed 
into  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  an  idea  is  altogether  incongruous. 
When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  men  are  baptized  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  is  so  often  done,  the  reference  must  be  to  effusion,  or 
affusion  of  the  Spirit  by  which  the  soul  is  cleansed  from  sin.  As 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  and  not  a  mere  influence  or  force,  the 
preposition  if  used  in  this  connection  (Matt.  iii.  11  ;  Mark  i.  8  : 
John  i.  33  ;  Acts  i.  5,  xi.  16  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  13)  must  have  its  in- 
strumental force.  The  work  j)erformed  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  a  baptism.  As  water  in  the  hands  of  John  was  the  purifying 
medium  for  the  body,  so  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  sent  or  given  by 
Jesus  Christ,  purifies  the  soul.  Some  of  the  modern  commen- 
tators are  such  purists  that  they  are  unwilling  to  allow  of  the 
shghtest  departure  from  classic  usage  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament.  They  speak  as  though  the  sacred  writers  were  Greek 
grammarians,  instead  of,  as  was  in  most  cases  the  fact,  unlettered 
men  writing  in  what  to  them  was  a  foreign  language.  Thus  be- 
cause the  particle  tva  in  classic  Greek  has  always  a  telic  force, 
they  deny  that  it  is  ever  used  ecbatically  in  the  New  Testament, 
even  in  such  cases  as  Luke  xxii.  30,  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  king- 
dom, ....  ill  order  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table." 
John  vi.  7,  "  Two  hundred  pennyworth  of  bread  is  not  sufficient 
for  them,  in  order  that  every  one  of  them  may  have  a  little." 
Romans  xi.  11,  "  Have  they  stumbled  with  the  design  that  they 
should  fall?"  1  Corinthians  xiv.  13,  "Let  him  that  speak- 
■eth  in  an  unknoAvn  tongue  pray  in  order  that  he  may  interpret," 
etc,  etc.  Thus,  also,  because  the  words  -kttcvm,  -l(ttl<;,  and  7rtorT6s 
in  the  classics  are  rarely  found  in  construction  with  the  preposi- 
tion e'l',  they  give  the  most  unnatural  interpretation  to  many  pas- 
sages in  order  to  avoid  admitting  that  construction  in  the  Now 
Testament.  This  is  done  in  the  face  of  such  passages  as  Mark  i. 
15,  TTto-rei'ere  eV  tw  evayyeXiw.     Galatians  iii.  20,  "  Ye  are  all  lite 


§  7.]  BAPTISM.     ITS  MODE.  533 

children  of  God,  Sm  rrys  Trt'o-rews  €1'  Xpto-Tcp  'Itjo-ov."  Ephesians  i.  15, 
"  After  I  heard  of  your,  ttio-tiv  iv  tw  Kvplw  Ttjo-oC,"  and  many  others 
of  lilve  kind.  In  like  manner  because  the  instrumental  force  of 
iv  is  rare  in  the  classics,  it  is  avoided  as  much  as  possible  in  the 
Scriptures.  Baptism  eV  7^^■er/xaTt,  instead  of  being  understood  as 
meaning  a  baptism  by,  or  with  the  Spirit,  is  made  to  mean  "  in 
the  sphere  of  the  Spirit,"  and  baptism  tV  Trvpt,  baptism  "  in  the 
sphere  of  fire."  What  this  means,  it  would  be  difficult  for  most 
of  those  for  whom  the  Bible  is  intended  to  understand.  The  bap- 
tism of  John  and  that  of  Christ  are  contrasted.  The  one  baptized 
with  water  ;  the  other  Avith  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Acts  i,  5,  it  is 
said,  "  John  truly  baptized  mth  water  (I'San,  the  simple  instru- 
mental dative)  ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  (er  UvevixaTL  aytw)  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  As  to  baptize  vSan  can- 
not mean  to  immerse  in  water,  so  neither  can  baptising  eV  t<o 
UvevixaTL  mean  immersing  in  the  Spirit.  The  fact  is  /5a7rrt^eti/  does 
not  express  any  particular  mode  of  action.  As  to  dye,  expresses 
any  kind  of  action  by  which  an  object  is  coloured ;  to  bury,  any 
kind  of  action  by  which  an  object  is  hidden  and  protected ;  so  to 
baptize,  expresses  any  act  by  which  a  person  or  thing  is  brought 
into  the  state  of  being  wet,  purified,  or  even  stupefied,  as  by 
opium  or  wine. 

Another  passage  in  which  this  word  occurs  where  the  idea  of 
immersion  is  precluded,  is  1  Corinthians  x.  1,  2,  "  All  our  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  peo- 
ple went  through  the  sea  dry  shod.  As  far  as  known  not  a  drop 
of  water  touched  them.  The  cloud  referred  to  was  doubtless  the 
pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night  which  guided 
the  j)eople  through  the  wilderness.  The  simple  and  generally 
accepted  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  that  as  a  man  is  brought  by 
Christian  baptism  into  the  number  of  the  professed  and  avowed 
disciples  of  Christ,  so  the  Hebrews  were  brought  by  the  super- 
natural manifestations  of  divine  power  specified,  into  the  relation 
of  disciples  and  followers  to  Moses.  There  is  no  allusion  to  im- 
mersion, affusion,  or  sprinkling  in  the  case. 

Another  passage  belonging  to  this  class  is  Mark  vii.  4,  "  When 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  (/SaTTTto-wiTat),  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  ves- 
sels, and  of  tables  ('<A(iw  ,  couches)."  To  maintain  that  beds  or 
couches  were  immersed,  is  a  mere  act  of  desperation.     Baptism 


634  PART   m.     Cn.  XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

means  here,  as  it  does  everywhere  when  used  of  a  religious  rite, 
symbohcal  purification  by  water,  without  the  slightest  reference 
to  the  mode  in  which  that  purification  was  effected. 

3.  The  third  class  of  passages  includes  all  those  in  which  the 
idea  of  immersion,  though  not  absolutely  precluded,  is  to  the  last 
degree  improbable.  The  late  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  than  whom 
there  is  no  higher  authority  on  all  that  relates  to  the  topography 
and  physical  geography  of  Palestine  and  the  habits  of  its  in- 
habitants, so  far  as  they  are  determined  by  the  nature  of  the 
country,  says  :  (1.)  "  The  idea  of  private  baths  in  families  in 
Jerusalem  and  Palestine  generally  is  excluded."  (2.)  "In  Acts 
ii.  41,  three  thousand  persons  are  said  to  have  been  baptized  at 
Jerusalem  apparently  in  one  day  at  the  season  of  Pentecost  in 
June  ;  and  in  Acts  iv.  4,  the  same  rite  is  necessarily  implied  in 
respect  to  five  thousand  more.  Against  the  idea  of  full  immer- 
sion in  these  cases  there  lies  a  difficulty,  apparently  insuperable, 
in  the  scarcity  of  water.  There  is  in  summer  no  running  stream 
in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  except  the  mere  rill  of  Siloam  a  few 
rods  in  length  ;  and  the  city  is  and  was  supplied  with  water 
from  its  cisterns  and  public  reservoirs.^  From  neither  of  these 
sources  could  a  supply  have  been  well  obtained  for  the  immersion 
of  eight  thousand  persons.  The  same  scarcity  of  water  forbade 
the  use  of  private  baths  as  a  general  custom  ;  and  thus  also 
further  precludes  the  idea  of  bathing"  in  such  passages  as  Luke 
xi.  38  ;  Mark  vii.  2-8.  He  confirms  his  conclusion  by  further 
remarking,  (3.)  "  In  the  earliest  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as,  for  example,  the  Itala,  which  Augustine  regarded  as 
the  best  of  all,^  which  goes  back  apparently  to  the  second  century 
and  to  usage  connected  with  the  apostolic  age,  the  Greek  verb, 
Pa-TTTL'CiD,  is  uniformly  given  in  the  Latin  form,  "  baptizo,"  and  is 
never  translated  by  "  immergo,"  or  any  like  word,  shoAving  that 
there  was  something  in  the  rite  of  baptism  to  which  the  latter  did 
not  correspond.^  (4.)  The  baptismal  fonts  still  found  *  among 
the  ruins  of  the  most  ancient  Greek  churches  in  Palestine,  as  at 
Tekoa  and  Gophna,  and  going  back  apparently  to  very  early 
times,  are  not  large  enough  to  admit  of  the  baptism  of  adult 
persons  by  immersion,  and  were  obviously  never  intended  for  that 
use." 5 

1  See  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  vol.  i.  pp.  479-516. 

2  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  ii.  22  [xv.];    Woi-ks,  edit.  Benediclines,  Paris,  1836,  vol.  iiL 
p.  54,  d. 

8  See  Blancliini,  EvangeUorum  Quadruples,  etc.,  Itoin.  1740. 

4  See  Robinson's  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  edit.  Boston,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  182;  vol 
iii.  p.  78. 
6  See  Robinson's  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  word  /Jan-Ti^w,  New  York,  1850. 


§  7.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   MODE.  535 

It  is,  therefore,  to  the  last  degree  improbable  that  the  thou- 
sands mentioned  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  were  baptized  by 
immersion.  The  same  improbability  exists  as  to  the  case  of  the 
centm-ion  in  Ciesarea  and  the  jailer  at  Philippi.  With  regard  to 
the  former,  Peter  said,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water?"  which  nat- 
urally implies  that  water  was  to  be  brought  to  Cornelius,  and 
not  he  be  taken  to  the  water.  As  to  the  jailer,  it  is  said  (Acts 
xvi.  33)  that  he  and  all  liis  were  baptized  within  the  prison,  as 
the  narrative  clearly  implies,  at  midnight.  There  is  the  same 
improbability  against  the  assumption  that  the  eunuch,  mentioned 
in  Acts  viii.  27-38,  was  baptized  by  immersion.  He  was  travel- 
ling through  a  desert  part  of  the  country  towards  Gaza,  when 
PhiHp  joined  him,  "And  as  they  went  on  their  way  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water  (eVt  n  vSwp,  to  some  water)."  There  is  no 
known  stream  in  that  region  of  sufficient  depth  to  allow  of  the 
immersion  of  a  man.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  there  might 
have  been  a  reservoir  or  tank  in  that  neighbourhood.  But  that 
is  a  fact  to  be  assumed  without  evidence  and  against  probability. 
It  is  said  they  "  went  down  both  into  the  watet,"  and  came  "  up 
out  of  the  water."  But  that  might  be  said,  if  the  water  were 
not  deep  enough  to  cover  their  ankles. 

The  presumption  is  still  stronger  against  immersion  in  the  case 
mentioned  in  Mark  vii.  4.  It  is  there  said  of  "the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,"  that  "when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  baptize  themselves  (eav  /x?/  (iairrlaM'TaC)  they  eat  not."  Let 
it  be  here  considered,  (1.)  That  private  baths  were  in  Jerusalem 
very  rare,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  (2.)  That  what  is  said, 
is  not  said  merely  of  men  of  wealth  and  rank  who  might  be  sup- 
posed to  have  conveniences  and  luxuries  which  the  common  peo- 
ple could  not  command.  It  is  said  of  the  "  Pharisees,"  a  large 
class,  and  not  only  of  that  class,  but  of  "  all  the  Jews."  It  is 
wellnigh  incredible,  under  such  circumstances,  that  "all  the 
Jews"  should  immerse  themselves  every  time  they  came  from 
the  (iyopa,  i.  e.,  "a  place  of  public  resort  in  towns  and  cities  ;  any 
open  place,  where  the  people  came  together  either  for  business  or 
to  sit  and  converse.  In.  oriental  cities  such  open  places  were  at 
the  inside  of  the  gates  ;  and  here  public  business  was  transacted, 
and  tribunals  held,  as  also  markets."  ^  That  all  the  Jews  im- 
mersed themselves  every  time  they  came  from  such  a  place  of 
pubHc  resort,  is  very  hard  to  believe,  considering  that  the  facil- 
ities for  such  immersion  were  not  at  their  command.     (3.)  The 

^  £4binson,  sub  coa. 


536   PART  III.  Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

words  baptize  and  wash  are  interchanged  in  tliis  whole  connection 
in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  ^\Titer,  they 
were  synonymous  expressions.  The  Pharisees  complained  that 
the  disciples  ate  mth  unwashen  (ditVrots)  hands ;  for  they  eat  not 
unless  they  wash  (iL\bii>vTaC)  their  hands  ;  and  when  they  come 
from  the  market  they  do  not  eat  unless  they  wash  (/^aTTTto-ojirai) ; 
and  they  hold  to  the  washing  (/SaTrrnT/^ovs)  of  cups,  and  pots,  of 
brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables  or  couches.  To  baptize  the  hands 
was  to  wash  the  hands,  and  the  usual  mode  of  ablution  in  the 
east  is  by  pouring  water  on  the  hands  (see  2  Kings  iii.  11). 

It  is  notorious  that  the  various  ablutions  prescribed  by  the 
Mosaic  law  were  effected  sometimes  by  immersion,  sometimes  by 
affusion,  and  sometimes  by  sprinkling.  And  it  is  no  less  true 
that  all  these  modes  of  purification  are  called  by  the  sacred 
writers  Sta^opot  /^aTrrto-^oi,  as  in  HebrcAvs  ix.  10,  and  JNIark  vii.  4, 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  there  is 
not  a  single  case  where  baptism  necessarily  implies  immersion  ; 
there  are  many  cases  in  which  that  meaning  is  entirely  inadmis- 
sible, and  many  more  in  which  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  imj)rob- 
able.  If  immersion  were  indispensable,  why  Avas  not  the  word 
Karahvui  used  to  express  the  command  ?  If  sprinkling  were  exclu- 
sively intended,  why  was  not  pauw  or  pairt^oj  used  ?  It  is  simply 
because  the  mode  is  nothing  and  the  idea  everything,  that  a  word 
was  chosen  which  includes  all  the  modes  in  which  water  can  be 
applied  as  the  means  of  purification.  Such  a  word  is  /SaTTTi^w,  for 
which  there  is  no  legitimate  substitute,  and  therefore  that  word 
has  been  retained  by  all  the  Churches  of  Christendom,  even  by 
the  Baptists  themselves. 

The  Patristic  Usage. 

This  is  a  wide  and  densely  wooded  field,  in  which  a  man  may 
find  anything  he  chooses  to  look  for,  unless  it  be  for  proof  that 
the  fathers  always  used  the  word  /JaTTTtJo)  in  the  sense  of  immer- 
sion. They  speak  of  the  waters  of  chaos  as  baptized  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  brooding  over  them  ;  they  were  thereby  sanctified 
and  a  sanctifying  poAver  was  imparted  to  the  Avaters.  The  only 
point  of  interest  here  is,  that  Tertullian,  for  example,  regarded 
this  as  "  baptismi  figura,"  a  figure  of  baptism.  The  point  of 
resemblance  assuredly  Avas  not  immersion. 

But  besides  this,  Suicer  gives  and  copiously  illustrates,  from 
the  Avriting  of  the  fathers,  no  less  than  eight  "  significations  ol 
the  word  baptism  (vocis  /3a7rrto-/xa  significationes)."     (1.)    The 


§  7.]  BAPTISM.    ITS   MODE.  537 

deluge  was  a  baptism,  not  only  for  the  world,  purging  away  ita 
sins,  but  also  for  Noah  and  his  family,  as  a  means  of  salvation. 
As  they  were  saved  by  the  waters  buoying  up  the  ark,  so  are  we 
saved  by  baptism.  (2.)  The  baptism  of  Moses  when  he  passed 
through  the  Red  Sea.  The  sea  was  the  symbol  of  the  Avater  of 
baptism ;  the  cloud,  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  (3.)  That  of  the  He- 
brews, as  among  them  any  person  or  thing  impure,  i^^overo  vSan, 
was  washed  with  water.  This  washing,  however  done,  Avas  bap- 
tism. (4.)  The  ba]3tism  of  John,  which  was  regarded  as  intro- 
ductory, not  spiritual,  or  conferring  the  Spirit,  but  simply  leading 
to  repentance.  (5.)  The  baptism  of  Jesus.  BaTrrt^et  Iryo-ous,  aAA.' 
iv  TrvevfiaTL.  Here  immersion  is  precluded.  (6.)  Of  tears,  Sia  8aK- 
pvw.  "  I  know  a  fifth,"  says  Gregory  Nazianzen,^  "  by  tears,  but 
very  laborious,  when  a  man  washes  (6  Aovwi/)  his  pillow  and  his 
bed  every  night  with  his  tears."  (7.)  Of  blood.  The  martyrs 
were  baptized  with  blood.  Christ's  cross  and  death  were  called 
his  baptism,  because  thereby  purification  was  made  for  the  sins 
of  men.  (8.)  The  baptism  of  fire.  This  is  sometimes  under- 
stood of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  purifies  as  fire  does  ;  at  others  of 
the  final  conflagration  when  the  earth  is  to  be  purified  by  fire. 
With  the  fathers,  therefore,  the  act  of  purification,  and  not  sim- 
ply or  only  the  act  of  immersion,  was  baptism.^ 

It  is  not  denied  that  /Sa-n-TLi^eiv  means  to  immerse,  or  that  it  is 
frequently  so  used  by  the  fathers  as  by  the  classic  authors  ;  it  is 
not  denied  that  the  Christian  rite  was  often  administered,  after 
the  apostolic  age,  by  immersion ;  it  is  not  even  denied  that  dur- 
ing certain  periods  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  in  certain 
regions,  immersion  was  the  common  method  in  which  baptism 
was  administered.  But  it  is  denied  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  baptism  ;  that  it  was  the  common  method  in  the  apostolic 
Churches ;  that  it  was  at  any  time  or  in  any  part  of  the  Church 
the  exclusive  method  ;  and  more  especially  is  it  denied  that  im- 
mersion is  now  and  everywhere  obligatory  or  necessary  to  the 
integrity  of  Christian  baptism. ^ 

1  Oratio,  xxxix. ;  Opera,  Cologne,  1680,  vol.  i.  p.  634. 

2  Joh.  Caspar!  Suiceri,  Tliesnurus  Eccleslasticus  e  Patribus  Greeds  ordine  alphahetico  ex-' 
hibens  Qamcunque  Phrases,  Ritus,  Dogmata,  ffmreses,  et.  hujusmodi  alia  spectant.  Opus 
viginti  annorum  indefesso  labore  adornatum,  2d  edit.,  Amstordam,  1728. 

3  See  Hermann  Cremer,  Biblisch-Theologisches  Worterbuch  der  NeutestamentUchen  Grd- 
citat,  Gotha,  1866.  After  referring  to  the  Old  Testament  ablations  the  author  says,  on  p. 
87:  "We  must,  therefore,  by  /iaTrri^eii'  understand  a  washing,  the  design  of  which,  as  of 
the  theocratical  washings  and  purifications,  was  the  purification  of  the  soul  from  sin  (Ent- 
aiindigung)."  On  p.  89  it  is  said,  "We  find  the  secondary  meaning  of  /JaTrr^ei^  in  Mat- 
thew iii.  11:    BaTTT.  iv   H-wu^iari  ayita   koX   nvpi,  opp.  ev   iiSari   ci?   /acravoiai'.  (■  mp.  Luke  iii.  16; 

John  i.  33.    That  it  is  not  the  meaning  of  immersion,  but  of  '  washing  with  the  design  of 


638       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

The  Catholicity  of  the  Crospel. 
The  third  general  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  the 
fact  that  the  Gospel  is  designed  for  all  classes  of  persons  and  for 
all  parts  of  the  earth.  It  is  not  intended  exclusively  for  the 
strong  and  robust,  but  also  for  the  weak,  the  sick,  and  the  dying. 
It  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  warm  or  temperate  regions  of  tlie 
earth,  but  it  is  to  be  preached  and  its  ordinances  are  to  be  admin- 
istered wherever  fallen  men  can  be  found.  Baptism  by  immer- 
sion would  be  to  many  of  the  sick  certainly  fatal ;  to  the  dying 
impossible.  To  the  inhabitants  of  Greenland,  if  possible,  it 
would  be  torture  ;  and  to  those  dwelling  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia 
or  Africa,  it  could  be  admmistered  only  at  long  intervals  or  at 
the  end  of  a  long  pilgrimage.  Yet  baptism  is  an  imperative 
duty.  The  command  of  Christ  is,  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  not  to  be  believed  that  our 
blessed  Lord  would  have  enjoined  an  external  rite  as  the  mode  of 
professing  his  religion,  the  observance  of  which,  under  many  cir- 
cumstances, would  be  exceedingly  difficult,  and  sometimes  impos- 
sible. 

Argument  from  the  Design  of  the  Ordinance. 

This  argument  was  adverted  to  in  the  beginning  of  this  section. 
It  requires,  however,  a  more  particular  consideration.  (1.)  It  is 
admitted  that  baptism  is  a  sign,  and  that  the  blessing  which  it 
signifies  is  purification  from  sin.  (2.)  It  is  admitted  that  the 
theocratical  purifications,  having  the  same  general  unport,  were 
effected  by  immersion,  affusion,  and  sprinkling.  (3.)  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  soul  is  cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  sin  by  the  blood 
of  Christ.  (4.)  It  is  admitted  that  under  the  Old  Testament  the 
application  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  for  sin  Avas  expressed  by 
the  act  of  sprinkling.  It  was  sprinkled  on  the  people  (Ex.  xxiv. 
8)  for  whose  benefit  the  sacrifices  were  offered ;  it  was  sprinkled 
upon  the  altar  ;  and,  by  the  High  Priest,  upon  the  mercy  seat. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  application  of  tlie  blood  of  Christ  is 
expressed  by  the  same  word.  "  Elect  ....  unto  ....  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Pet.  i.  2.)  "  The  blood  of 
sprinkling,  that  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel."  (Heb. 
xii.  24.)  (5.)  It  is  admitted,  further,  that  the  purification  of  the 
soul  from  the  moral  pollution  of  sin  is  effected  by  the  renewing 

purificatioii,'  that  is  transferred,  is  plain  from  the  antithesis  between  iv  v&    and  iv  wv. 
whereb}-  the  two  baptisms  are  distinguished." 


§8.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   FORMULA.  539 

of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (6.)  It  is  admitted  that  the  communication 
of  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  is  expressed  in  the  use 
of  two  famiUav  figures,  that  of  anointing  with  oil,  and  that  of 
the  pouring  of  water.  Kings,  priests,  and  prophets  were  anointed. 
The  people  of  God  are  called  his  "  anointed."  The  Apostle  John 
says  to  believers  :  "  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and 

ye  know  all  things The  anointing  which  ye  have  received 

of  Him  abideth  in  you."  (1  John  ii.  20  and  27.)  The  other 
figure  is  no  less  familiar.  (Is.  xxxii.  15  ;  Joel  ii.  28.)  The 
Spirit's  influences  are  compared  to  rain  which  waters  the  earth, 
and  to  the  dew  which  falls  on  the  mown  grass.  From  all  this  it 
appears  that  the  truth  symbolized  in  baptism  may  be  signified  by 
immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling ;  but  that  the  ordinance  is  most 
significant  and  most  conformed  to  Scripture,  when  administered 
by  affusion  or  sprinkling. 

§  8.   The  Formula  of  Baptism. 

This  is  authoritatively  prescribed  in  Matthew  xxviii.  19. 
Christ  gave  a  command  perpetually  binding  on  his  Church  to 
baptize  men  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  In  this  passage  the  preposition  ets  (ets  t6  ovofxa) 
means  unto,  or,  in  reference  to.  Paul  asks  the  Corinthians, 
"  were  ye  baptized  ets  to  6Vo/xa  rTai-A-ou;"  (1  Cor.  i.  13.  Did  your 
baptism  make  you  the  disciples  of  Paul?)  He  tells  them  (1 
Cor.  X.  2)  that  the  fathers,  "  were  baptized  unto  Moses  '"  et? 
Tov  Mcocri^v,  they  were  made  and  professed  to  be  the  disciples  of 
Moses.  So  in  Romans  vi.  3,  it  is  said  we  "  were  baptized  ets 
Xpia-Tov  I-qaovv  unto  Jesus  Clirist."  Galatians  iii.  27,  "  Baptized 
into  (m)  Christ."  According  to  this  formula,  he  who  receives 
baptism  as  a  Christian  rite,  thereby  professes  to  stand  in  that  re- 
lation to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  which  those  who  receive  the 
religion  of  Christ  sustain.  That  is,  he  professes  to  receive  God 
the  Father,  as  his  father  ;  God  the  Son,  as  his  Saviour,  and  God 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  his  teacher  and  sanctifier  ;  and  this  involves  the 
engagement  to  receive  the  Word,  of  which  the  Spirit  is  the  author, 
as  the  rule  of  his  faith  and  practice.^ 

1  Fritzsche  on  Romans  vi.  3,  says:  "  Loquutio,  /^an-W^o)  ma  el?  nra  (el?  «)  per  se  non 
minus  late  patet,  quam  vernacula  Jemanden  auf  Jemanden  (aut  etwas)  taufen.  Non  enini 
nisi  banc  generalem  notionem  complectitur:  aliquem  aquic  ita  immergere,  iit  ejus  cogita- 
tiones  in  aliquem  (aliquod)  dirigas,  Jemanden  unter  Beziehung,  Hindeutung  auf  jeniaudeu 
(etwas)  taufen.  At  multis  de  causis  ei  qui  lavatur  res  memorabilis  monstrari  potest,  v.  c, 
ut  in  aliquo  fidem  collocet,  ut  aliquem  ducem  sequatur,  ut  aliquid  pie  revereatur,  ut  aliquid 

effectum  reddat,  ut  aliquid  sibi  evenisse  sciat  et  sic  porro Sic  dubitare  non  potest. 

quin  /SaTTTi^ui  nra  ets  XpiaTov  (Gal.  iii.  27),  aqua;  aliquem  sic  immergere,  ut  auimum  ad 


540       PART  III    Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

There  are  several  cases  in  which  baptism  is  said  to  have  been 
administered  iv  tw  oio/xan  in,  or  on,  the  name  of  Christ,  instead  of 
€ts  TO  oi'ofxa  into,  or,  in  reference  to.  And  in  Acts  ii.  38,  the 
preposition  eVt  is  used,  eVt  tw  oro/xart.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any- 
thing materially  different  was  intended  to  be  expressed  by  this 
change  of  the  prepositions  and  cases.  To  baptize,  eVi  or  Iv  oro/xart, 
means  to  baptize  "  upon  the  name,"  sc,  of  Christ,  that  is,  upon 
the  authority  of  Christ.  The  rite  is  administered  in  obedience 
to  his  command,  in  the  form  in  which  he  prescribed,  and  with  the 
intent  for  which  he  ordained  it. 

In  the  Acts  it  is  repeatedly  said  that  the  Apostles  baptized 
their  converts  in  "  the  name  of  Christ."  It  is  not  to  be  inferred 
from  this  fact  that  they  departed  from  the  form  prescribed  in 
Matthew  xxviii.  19,  and  administered  the  ordinance  in  the  use  of 
the  words,  '  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  Christ ; '  or,  '  I  bap- 
tize thee  £''s  Xpio-Tov  unto  Christ.'  Such  inference  is  unnecessary ; 
as  baptism  administered  in  the  way  prescribed  in  Matthew  xxviii. 
19,  is  a  baptism  both  in  the  name,  or,  by  the  authority  of 
Christ,  and  unto  or  in  reference  to  Him.  As  this  inference  is 
unnecessary  so  it  is  improbable.  It  is  -in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable that  the  Apostles  would  have  departed  from  the  form 
so  solemnly  prescribed  by  their  Divine  Master  ;  and  it  is  more- 
over improbable  that  any  such  departure  took  place  from  the  fact 
that  the  form  prescribed  in  Matthew  has  been  used  m  all  agee 
and  parts  of  the  Church. 

§  9.    The  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

"  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the 
visible  Church,  till  they  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience 
to  Him  :  but  the  infants  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible 
Church  are  to  be  baptized."  ^ 

The  question.  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ?  is  de- 
termined by  the  design  of  the  ordinance  and  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles.  It  has  been  shown  that,  according  to  our  standards, 
the  sacraments  (and  of  course  baptism)  were  instituted,  to  sig- 
nify, seal,  and  apply  to  believers  the  benefits  of  the  redemption 
of  Christ.  The  reception  of  baptism,  so  far  as  adults  are  con- 
cerned, is  an  intelligent,  voluntary  act,  which  from  its  nature  in- 

Christum  applicare  eum  jubeas,  valeat  ita  aliquem  aqua  lustrare  ut  Christo  fidem  baben- 

dam  esse  ei  siigiiHices  (Act.  xix.  4),  et  liamiiut  nva  eis  t6  ovoiia  toO  narpd?,  kt\ iiotet 

lustro  aliquem  reverentia,  qusB  Patris  —  nomini  debeatur,  eum  obstringens."     Edit.  Ilal.'e, 
1836,  vol.  i.  pp.  359,  3G0. 
1    Weatminsier  Shorter  Catechism,  quest.  95. 


§9.]  BAPTISM.    ITS   SUBJECTS.  541 

volves,  (1.)  A  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  (2.)  A  promise 
of  allegiance  to  Him. 
This  is  clear, — 

1.  From  the  command  of  Christ  to  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  A  disciple,  however,  is  both  a  recipient  of 
doctrines  taught,  and  a  follower.  Every  one,  therefore,  who  is 
made  a  disciple  by  baptism,  enrolls  himself  among  the  number 
of  those  who  receive  Christ  as  their  teacher  and  Lord,  and  who 
profess  obedience  and  devotion  to  his  service. 

2.  This  is  further  clear  from  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles. In  every  case  on  record  of  their  administering  the  rite,  it 
was  on  the  condition  of  a  profession  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
recipient.  The  answer  of  Phihp  to  the  eunuch  who  asked,  What 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thine 
heart  thou  mayest,"  discloses  the  principle  on  which  the  Apostles 
uniformly  acted  in  this  matter. 

3.  This  has  in  all  ages  been  the  practice  of  the  Church.  No 
man  was  admitted  to  baptism  without  an  intelligent  profession  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  a  solemn  engagement  of  obedience  to  Him. 
The  practice  of  Romanist  missionaries  in  baptizing  the  heathen 
in  crowds,  can  hardly  be  considered  as  invaHdating  this  state- 
ment. 

Although  this  has  been  the  principle  universally  admitted, 
there  has  been  no  httle  diversity  as  to  its  appKcation,  according 
to  the  different  views  of  the  nature  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  obedience  required  by  the  Gospel.  In  some  points, 
however,  there  has  ever  been  a  general  agreement. 

Qualifications  for  Adult  Baptism. 
1.  Faith  supposes  knowledge  of  at  least  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel.  Some  may  unduly  enlarge,  and  some  unduly 
restrict  the  number  of  such  doctrines ;  but  no  Church  advocates 
the  baptism  of  the  absolutely  ignorant.  If  baptism  involves  a 
profession  of  faith,  it  must  involve  a  profession  of  faith  in  cer- 
tain doctrines  ;  and  those  doctrines  must  be  known,  in  order  to 
be  professed.  In  the  early  Church,  therefore,  there  was  a  class 
of  catechumens  or  candidates  for  baptism  who  were  under  a  reo-- 
ular  course  of  instruction.  This  com-se  continued,  according  to 
circumstances,  from  a  few  months,  to  three  years.  These  cate- 
chumens were  not  only  young  men,  but  often  persons  in  mature 
life,  and   of   all  degrees   of   mental    culture.     Where   Christian 


542  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means    OF    GRACE. 

churches  were  established  in  the  midst  of  large  heathen  cities, 
the  Gosj)el  could  not  fail  to  excite  general  attention.  The  interest 
of  persons  of  all  classes  would  be  more  or  less  awakened.  Many- 
would  be  so  impressed  with  the  excellence  of  the  new  religion, 
as  to  desire  to  learn  its  doctrines  and  join  themselves  to  the  com- 
pany of  believers.  These  candidates  for  baptism,  being  in  many- 
cases  men  of  the  highest  culture,  it  was  necessary  that  their 
teachers  should  be  men  thoroughly  instructed  and  disciphned. 
We  accordingly  find  such  men  as  Pantoenus,  Clemens,  and  Origen 
successively  at  the  head  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria.^ 
These  schools,  although  primarily  designed  for  converts  from 
among  the  Jews  and  heathen,  on  account  of  their  high  character, 
soon  began  to  be  frequented  by  other  classes,  and  especially  by 
those  who  were  in  training  for  the  ministry.  When  Christianity 
became  the  prevalent  religion,  and  the  ranks  of  the  Church  were 
filled  up,  not  by  converts  of  mature  age,  but  by  those  born  within 
its  pale  and  baptized  in  their  infancy,  the  necessity  for  such  schools 
no  longer  existed.  Their  place,  however,  was  supplied  by  the 
systematic  instruction  of  the  young  in  preparation  for  their  con- 
firmation or  their  first  communion. 

2.  All  churches  are  agreed  in  demanding  of  adults  who  are 
candidates  for  baptism,  a  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ  and 
the  Gospel  of  his  salvation. 

3.  They  agree  in  requiring  of  those  who  are  baptized  the  re- 
nunciation of  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil.  This  involves 
a  turning  from  sin,  and  a  turning  to  God. 

Although  these  principles  are,  as  just  remarked,  generally  ad- 
mitted, there  is,  in  practice,  great  diversity  in  their  application. 
Where  the  Church  was  pure  and  its  ministers  faithful,  these 
requisitions  were  strenuously  enforced  ;  but  where  the  reverse  was 
the  case,  the  most  formal,  and  often  evidently  insincere,  assent  to 
the  creed  of  the  Church  was  taken  for  a  profession  of  faith  ;  and 
a  renunciation  of  the  world  compatible  with  devotion  to  its  pleas- 
ures and  its  sins,  was  accepted  in  the  place  of  genuine  repentance. 
It  is  well,  however,  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  the  Church  has 
a  right  to  demand  of  adults  when  they  apply  for  baptism.  It  is 
evident  from  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  and  from  the  avowed 
princij)les  of  all  Christian  churches,  that  we  are  bound  to  require 
of  all  such  candidates,  (1.)  A  competent  knowledge  of  the  Gospel. 
(2.)  A  credible  profession  of  faith.  (3.)  A  conversation  void  of 
offence. 

1  H.  E.  F.  Guerike,  De  Sckola  qucB  Alexandria  floruit,  catechetica,  Halle,  1824. 


§9.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   SUBJECTS.  543 

The  question,  although  thus  simple  in  its  general  statement,  is 
nevertheless  one  of  great  difficulty.  As  it  is  almost  universally 
the  fact  that,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned,  the  qualifications  for 
baptism  are  the  same  as  those  for  admission  to  the  Lord's  table, 
the  question.  What  are  the  quahfications  for  adult  baptism  ?  re- 
solves itself  into  the  question,  What  are  the  quahfications  for 
church-membership  ?  The  answer  to  that  question,  it  is  evident, 
must  be  determined  by  the  views  taken  of  the  nature  and  the 
prerogattves  of  the  Church.  We  accordmgly  find  that  there  are 
three  general  views  of  the  qualifications  for  adult  baptism,  founded 
on  the  three  generic  views  of  the  nature  of  the  Church. 

Romish  Theory  of  the   Church. 

First,  the  theory  derived  from  the  ancient  theocracy  and  from 
the  analogy  between  the  Church  and  a  civil  commonwealth.  The 
theocracy,  or  the  Church,  under  the  old  dispensation,  was  essen- 
tially an  externally  organized  body.  All  the  natural  descendants 
of  Abraham,  through  Isaac,  were,  in  virtue  of  their  birth,  mem- 
bers of  the  "  Commonwealth  of  Israel."  As  such,  independently 
of  their  own  moral  character  or  that  of  their  parents,  they  were 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  economy  under  which  they 
lived.  They  were  freely  admitted  to  the  services  of  the  Temple, 
to  the  Passover,  and  to  all  the  sacred  festivals,  and  typical  insti- 
tutions of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  even  to  those  which  were  truly 
of  a  sacramental  character.  The  Hebrews  were,  of  course,  sub- 
ject to  the  laws  of  the  theocracy  under  which  they  lived;  for 
minor  offences  they  forfeited  this  or  that  privilege,  or  were  sub- 
jected to  some  specified  penalty  ;  and  for  graver  offences  they 
were  excommunicated  or  cut  off  from  among  the  people.  All 
this  finds  a  parallel  in  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  All  native 
born  Englishmen  are  subjects  of  the  crown,  and  are  entitled  to  ail 
the  privileges  of  Englishmen  ;  they  may  be  good  or  bad  citi- 
zens, but  their  citizenship  does  not  depend  upon  their  character ; 
they  may  be  punished  for  their  offences,  but  they  cannot  be  de- 
prived of  their  rights  as  citizens  unless  they  are  outlawed. 

This  theory  has,  by  Romanists  and  Romanizers,  been  trans- 
ferred bodily  to  the  Church.  The  Church,  according  to  them,  is 
essentially  an  externally  organized  society.  All  born  within  its 
pale  are  "  ipso  facto  "  its  members,  and  entitled  to  all  its  priv- 
ileges. They  are  entitled  to  all  its  sacraments  and  ordinances,  not 
in  virtue  of  their  character,  but  in  virtue  of  their  birthright. 
Thus  Mr.  Palmer,^  of  the  Oxford  Anglican  School,  says  that  the 
1  Palmer,  On  the  Church,  New  York,  1841,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 


544  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means   OF   GRACE. 

Scriptures  make  no  mention  of  regeneration,  sanctity,  or  real 
piety  visible  or  invisible,  as  prerequisites  for  admission  to  the 
sacrament  of  baptism.^  No  doubt  a  pious  Hebrew  priest  would 
exhort  those  who  came  to  offer  sacrifices  or  to  celebrate  the  Pass- 
over, that  they  should  attend  on  those  services  in  a  devout  spirit 
and  in  the  exercise  of  faith,  assuring  them  that  the  mere  external 
service  was  of  no  account.  The  Romanist,  with  his  "  ex  opere 
operato  "  theory  of  the  sacraments,  could  hardly  go  as  far  as  that, 
but  he  would  doubtless  exhort  the  candidate  for  baptism,*  and  all 
who  come  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  to  perform  those 
duties  in  a  proper  spirit.  But  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
right  of  approach.  We  may  exhort  citizens  to  exercise  their  civil 
rights  conscientiously,  and  with  a  due  regard  to  the  interests  of 
the  country,  but  the  rights  themselves  are  not  to  be  disputed. 

The  same  result  is  reached,  although  on  a  different  theory,  in 
all  those  countries  in  which  Church  and  State  are  so  united  that 
the  head  of  the  State  is  the  head  of  the  Church  ;  and  that  mem- 
bership in  the  Church  is  a  condition  of  citizenship  in  the  State. 
This  was  the  case  for  centuries  in  England,  and  is  so  to  a  great 
extent  to  the  present  day.  The  reigning  sovereign  is  still  the 
head  of  the  Church,  the  supreme  authority  in  administering  its 
government.  The  laws  of  the  Church  are  acts  of  Parliament ; 
every  Englishman,  unless  he  voluntarily  makes  himself  an  excep- 
tion, has  a  right  to  all  the  services  of  the  Church,  including  the 
right  to  be  buried  as  a  Christian  "  in  the  sure  hope  of  a  blessed  res- 
urrection." Until  of  late  years  no  man  could  hold  any  important 
office,  especially  in  the  army  or  navy,  who  was  not  in  communion 
with  the  established  Church.  So  also  in  Prussia,  the  head  of  the 
State  governs  the  Church.  No  man,  unless  a  Romanist  or  a  He- 
brew, can  marry,  become  an  apprentice,  or  enter  on  the  practice 
of  a  profession  without  producing  a  certificate  of  baptism  and 
confirmation. 

Puritan  Theory  of  the   Church. 

The  second  general  theory  of  the  nature  of  the  Church  is  that, 
which  for  convenience  sake,  may  be  called  the  Puritan.  The 
word  Puritan  has  in  history  a  much  wider  sense  than  that  as- 
signed to  it  in  modern  usa^e.  In  English  history  the  designation 
Puritan  was  applied  to  all  those,  who  under  the  reigns  of  Eliza- 

1  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  was  said  above  of  all  churches  requiring  as  tlie  con- 
ditions of  adult  baptism,  competent  knowledge,  a  profession  of  faith,  and  the  ronunciatiou 
of  the  world.  What  was  there  said  concerned  the  reception  of  members  into  the  Church, 
ab  extra.     What  is  here  said  concerns  those  who  are  members  of  the  Church  by  birth. 


§9.]  BAPTISM.     ITS    SUBJECTS.  545 

beth  and  Charles  I.  were  desirous  of  a  further  reformation  of  the 
Church,     Many  prelates,  and  thousands    of    Episcopalians    and 
Presbyterians,  were  included  in  that  class.     Modern  usage  has 
confined  the  term  to  the  Independents  or  Congregationalists,  the 
followers  of  Brown  and  Robinson.     They  were,  therefore,  often 
called  Brownists.     According  to  them  the  visible  Church  consists 
of  the  regenerate  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  and  the  prerogative  of  the 
Church  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  question  whether  the  applicant 
for  admission  to  the  sacraments  is  truly  born  of  God.     Hence  m 
New  England,  there  was  a  broad  distinction  made  between  the 
Church  and  the  parish.     The  former  consisted  of  the  body  of 
communicants  ;  the  latter  of  those  who,  though  not  communi- 
cants, frequented  the  same  place  of  worship  and  contributed  to 
the  support  of  the  minister  and  to  other  congregational  expenses. 
"  To  join  the  Church,"  thus  came  to  mean  joining  the  number 
of  those  who  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper.    This  of  course 
implies,  that  communicants  only  are  in  the  Church.     This  view  ■ 
has  gained  ascendancy  in  this  country  even,  to  a  great  extent, 
among  Presbyterians. 

The   Common  Protestant  Theory. 

According  to  our  standards  the  visible  Church  consists  of  all 
those  who  profess  the  true  religion  together  with  their  chiMren. 
The  common  Protestant  theory  of  the  Church  agrees  with  that 
of  the  Puritans  in  the  following  points.     (1.)  That  the  true  or 
invisible  Church  as  a  whole  consists  of  the  elect.     This  is  the 
Church  which  Christ  loved,  for  which  He  gave  Himself,  that  He 
might  sanctify  it,  and  present  it  to  Himself  a  glorious  Church 
without  spot  or  wrinkle.     (Eph.  v.  25-27.)     (2.)  That  the  true 
or   invisible    Church    on    earth    consists    of    all   true    behevers. 
(3.)  That  the  profession  of  faith  made  by  those  Avho  are  bap- 
tized, or  come  to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  is  a  profession  of  true 
faith.     That  is,  those  baptized  profess  to  be  Christians.     The 
point  of  difference  between  the   theories   concerns  the  duty  and 
prerogative  of  the  Church  in  the  matter.     According  to  the  one 
view  the  Church  is  bound  to  be  satisfied  in  its  judgment  that  the 
applicant  is  truly  regenerate  ;  according  to  the  other,  no   such 
judgment  is  expressed  or  imphed  in  receiving  any  one  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  Church.     As  Christ  has  not  given  his  people 
the  power  to  search  the  heart.  He  has  not  imposed  upon  them 
the  duty  which  implies  the  possession  of  any  such  power.     Both 
parties  require  a  credible  profession  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the 

VOL.  III.  35 


546  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means    OF   GRACE. 

applicant  for  membership.  But  the  one  means  by  credible,  that 
which  constrains  belief  ;  the  other,  that  which  may  be  believed, 
i.  e.,  that  against  which  no  tangible  evidence  can  be  adduced.  If 
such  applicant  be  a  heretic,  or  if  his  manner  of  life  contradicts 
his  profession,  he  ought  not  to  be  received  ;  and  if  already  in  the 
Church,  he  ought,  as  the  Apostle  says,  to  be  rejected.  The  com- 
mon Protestant  doctrine  is  that  nothing  authorizes  us  to  refuse  a 
man  admission  to  the  Chtu'ch,  which  would  not  justify  his  exclu- 
sion if  already  a  member  of  it.  If  guilty  of  any  "  offence  "  or 
"  scandal,"  he  ought  to  be  excluded  ;  and  if  chargeable  with  any 
such  "  offence  "  or  "  scandal,"  he  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to 
membership,  no  matter  what  his  profession  or  detail  of  exj^erience 
may  be.  The  late  Dr.  John  M.  Mason  clearly  and  forcibly  ex- 
presses the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject,  when  he  says  :  "  A 
credible  profession  of  Christianity,  is  all  that  she  [the  Church] 
may  require  in  order  to  communion.  She  may  be  deceived  ;  her 
utmost  caution  may  be,  and  often  has  been,  ineffectual  to  keep 
bad  men  from  her  sanctuary.  And  this,  too,  without  her  fault, 
as  she  is  not  omniscient.  But  she  has  no  right  to  suspect  sin- 
cerity, to  refuse  privilege,  or  inflict  censure,  Avhere  she  can  put 
her  finger  upon  nothing  repugnant  to  the  love  or  the  laws  of 
God."  1  And  on  the  following  page  he  says  :  "  A  profession  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  of  obedience  to  Him,  not  discredited  by 
other  traits  of  character,  entitles  an  adult  to  the  privileges  of  his 
Church." 

This  is  not  the  place  for  the  discussion  of  the  question  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  the  Chui-ch.  These  theories  are  simply  men- 
tioned here  because  of  their  bearing  on  the  subject  of  adult  bap- 
tism. According  to  all  these  theories  believing  adults  are,  by  the 
command  of  Christ,  entitled  to  Christian  baptism.  Much  more 
difficulty  attends  the  question  concernmg 

§  10.  Infant  Baptism. 

'  The  difficulty  on  this  subject  is  that  baptism  from  its  very 
nature  involves  a  profession  of  faith  ;  it  is  the  way  in  which  by 
the  ordinance  of  Christ,  He  is  to  be  confessed  before  men  ;  but 
infants  are  incapable  of  making  such  confession  ;  therefore  they 
are  not  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Or,  to  state  tlie  matter 
in  another  form :  the  sacraments  belong  to  the  members  of  the 
Church  ;  but  the  Church  is  the  company  of  beUevers ;  infants 

1  Essays  on  the  Church  of  God,  by  John  M.  Mason,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1843,  Essay  in. 
p.  57. 


5  lO.j  BAPTISM   OF   INFANTS.  547 

cannot  exercise  faith,  therefore  they  are  not  members  of  the 
Church,  and  consequently  ought  not  to  be  baptized. 

In  order  to  justify  the  baptism  of  infants,  we  must  attain  and 
authenticate  such  an  idea  of  the  Church  as  that  it  shall  include 
the  children  of  believing  parents.  The  word  Church  is  used  in 
Scripture  and  in  common  life,  in  many  different  senses,  (1.)  It 
means  the  whole  body  of  the  elect,  as  in  Ephesians  v.  25,  and 
when  the  Church  is  said  to  be  the  body,  or  the  bride  of  Christ, 
to  be  filled  by  his  Spirit,  etc.  (2.)  It  means  any  number  of  be- 
lievers collectively  considered  ;  or  the  whole  number  of  believers 
residing  in  any  one  place,  or  district,  or  throughout  the  world. 
In  this  sense  we  use  the  word  when  we  pray  God  to  bless  his 
Church  universal,  or  his  Church  in  any  particular  place.  (3.)  It 
is  used  as  a  collective  term  for  the  body  of  professed  believers  in 
any  one  place  ;  as  when  we  speak  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  of 
Ephesus,  or  of  Corinth.  (-1.)  It  is  used  of  any  number  of  pro- 
fessed believers  bound  together  by  a  common  standard  of  doctrine 
and  discipline ;  as  the  Church  of  England,  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  Reformed  Church.  And 
(5.)  It  is  used  for  all  the  professors  of  the  true  religion  through- 
out the  world,  considered  as  united  in  the  adoption  of  the  same 
general  creed  and  in  common  subjection  to  Christ. 

It  is  evident  that  no  one  definition  of  the  Church  can  include 
all  the  senses  in  which  the  word  is  legitimately  used ;  and,  there- 
fore, that  we  may  affirm  of  the  Church  m  one  sense  of  the  word, 
what  must  be  denied  of  it  in  a  different  sense ;  and  the  same 
person  may  be  said  to  be,  or  not  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church 
according  to  the  meaning  attached  to  the  word.  In  the  present 
discussion,  by  the  Church  is  meant  what  is  called  the  visible 
Church  ;  that  is,  the  whole  body  of  those  who  profess  the  true 
religion,  or,  any  number  of  such  professors  united  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  public  worship  of  Chi'ist,  and  fur  the  exercise  of 
mutual  watch  and  care.  With  regard  to  infcint  baptism  the  fol- 
lowing propositions  may  be  maintained. 

First  Proposition.     The  Visible  Church  is  a  Divine  Institution. 

Concerning  the  Church  in  this  sense,  it  is  clearly  taught  in 
Scripture,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  such  a  Church  should 
exist  on  earth.  This  no  Christian  denies.  God  has  imposed 
duties  upon  his  people  which  render  it  necessary  for  them  thus 
to  associate  m  a  visible  organized  body.  They  are  to  miite  m  his 
worship  ;  in  teaching  and  propagating  his  truth ;  in  testifying  for 


648         PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means    OF   GRACE. 

God  in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  He  lias  prescribed 
the  conditions  of  membership  in  this  body,  and  taught  who  are 
to  be  excluded  from  its  communion.  He  has  appointed  officers, 
specified  their  qualifications,  their  prerogatives,  and  the  mode  of 
their  appointment.  He  has  enacted  laws  for  its  government.  Its 
rise,  progress,  and  consummation  are  traced  in  history  and  proph- 
ecy, from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  Bible.  This  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  of  which  our  Lord  discourses  in  so  many  of  his 
parables,  and  which  it  is  predicted  is  ultimately  to  include  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth. 

Second  Proposition.     The  Visible  OhurcJi  does  not  consist  exclu- 
sively of  the  Hegenerate. . 

It  is  no  less  clearly  revealed  that  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  God 
that  the  visible  Church  on  earth  should  consist  exclusively  of  true 
believers.  This  is  plain,  (1.)  Because  the  attainment  of  such  a 
result  in  any  society  or  government  administered  by  men  is  an 
impossibility.  It  would  require  that  the  officers  of  the  Church 
or  the  Church  itself  should  have  the  power  to  read  the  heart, 
and  be  infallible  in  judgments  of  character.  (2.)  The  condi- 
tions which,  under  both  dispensations.  He  has  prescribed  for  ad- 
mission into  this  visible  society  of  his  professed  worshippers,  are 
such  as  men  not  truly  regenerated  may  possess.  Those  qualifica- 
tions, as  we  have  seen,  are  competent  knowledge,  and  a  credible 
profession  of  faith  and  obedience.  (3.)  Our  Lord  expressly  for- 
bids the  attempt  being  made.  He  compares  his  external  king- 
dom, or  visible  Church,  to  a  field  in  which  tares  and  wheat  grow 
together.  He  charged  his  disciples  not  to  undertake  to  separate 
them,  because  they  could  not,  in  all  cases,  distinguish  the  one 
from  the  other.  Both  were  to  be  allowed  to  grow  together  until 
the  harvest.  (4.)  Christ,  to  whom  all  hearts  are  known,  admit- 
ted Judas  to  the  number  of  his  most  favoured  disciples,  and  even 
made  him  an  Apostle.  (5.)  All  attempts  to  make  a  Clmrch 
consisting  exclusively  of  the  regenerate,  have  failed.  So  far  as 
known,  no  such  Church  has  ever  existed  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
This  of  itself  is  proof  that  its  existence  did  not  enter  into  the 
purpose  of  God. 

Third  Projjosition.     The  Commomvealth  of  Israel  teas  the  Church. 

(1.)  It  is  so  called  in  Scripture.  (Acts  vii.  88.)  (2.)  Tlie  He- 
brews were  called  out  from  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  the 
peculiar  people  of  God.    They  constituted  his  kingdom.     (3.)  To 


§  10.]  BAPTISM    OF  INFANTS,  549 

them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.  They  were  Israelites ; 
to  them  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants, 
and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service,  and  the  promises. 
(Rom.  ix.  4.)  Nothing  more  can  be  said  of  the  Church  mider 
the  new  dispensation.  They  were  selected  for  a  Church  purpose, 
namely,  to  be  witnesses  for  God  in  the  world  in  behalf  of  the 
true  religion  ;  to  celebrate  his  worship  ;  and  to  observe  his  ordi- 
nances. Their  religious  officers,  prophets,  and  priests,  were  ap- 
pointed by  God  and  were  his  ministers.  No  man  could  become 
a  member  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  who  did  not  profess 
the  true  religion  ;  promise  obedience  to  the  law  of  God  as  re- 
vealed in  his  Word ;  and  submit  to  the  rite  of  circumcision  as  the 
seal  of  the  covenant.  There  is  no  authorized  definition  of  the 
Church,  which  does  not  include  the  people  of  God  under  the 
Mosaic  law. 

Fourth  Proposition.     The  Church  under  the  New  Dispensation 
is  identical  with  that  under  the  Old. 

It  is  not  a  new  Church,  but  one  and  the  same.  It  is  the  same 
olive-tree.  (Rom.  xi.  16,  17.)  It  is  founded  on  the  same  cove- 
nant, the  covenant  made  with  Abraham.  It  has,  indeed,  often 
been  said~that~it~is  to  belittle  the  truth  to  put  the  idea  of  a 
covenant  between  God  and  man  in  the  place  of  a  general  law  or 
economy.  It  is,  however,  to  be  remembered  that  God  is  a  per- 
son, capable  of  speaking  with  other  persons,  of  promising  and 
threatening.  These  promises  are  not  merely  announcements  of 
the  results  of  cosmical  laws,  physical  or  moral.  That  Christ 
should  be  born  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
and  of  the  house  of  David,  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  working 
of  any  general  law.  Nothing  pertaining  to  his  advent,  his  per- 
son, his  work,  or  to  the  application  of  his  redemption,  is  to  be 
accounted  for  in  any  such  way.  Our  Lord  gives  us  an  infinitely 
higher  idea  of  God's  relation  to  the  world  when  He  tells  us  that 
He  feeds  the  young  ravens  when  they  cry  ;  and  that  the  hairs  of 
our  heads  are  all  numbered ;  than  when  He  is  regarded  as  merely 
the  author  or  source  of  the  physical  and  moral  order  of  the  uni- 
verse. A  covenant  is  a  promise  suspended  upon  a  condition.  It 
is  beyond  controversy  that  God  did  make  such  a  promise  to 
Adam,  to  Abraham,  and  to  the  Hebrew  nation  through  IVIoses  ; 
and  these  transactions  are  in  Scripture  constantly  called  cove- 
nants. It  does  not,  therefore,  seem  very  reverent  to  speak  of 
God  as  belitthng  his  truth  by  the  form  in  which  He  presents  it. 


550  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.   -THE  MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

God,  tlien,  did  enter  into  covenant  with  Abraham.  In  that 
covenant  He  promised  that  Abraham,  although  nearly  a  liundred 
years  old,  should  have  a  son.  He  promised  that  his  descendants, 
through  Isaac,  should  be  as  numerous  as  the  stars  in  heaven  ; 
that  He  would  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  possession  ; 
that  He  would  be  their  national  God,  and  that  the  Hebrews  as  a 
nation  should  be  His  peculiar  people ;  and  above  all  He  promised 
the  patriarch  that  in  his  seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed.  By  seed  was  not  meant  his  descendants  collectively, 
but  one  person,  that  is,  Christ.  (Gal.  iii.  16.)  The  blessing 
promised,  therefore,  was  the  blessing  of  redemption  through 
Christ,  his  promise  to  Abraham  was  a  repetition  of  the  prom- 
ise made  to  our  first  parents  after  the  fall,  this  promise  was 
the  Gospel.  The  Gospel  or  emyye'Xtov  has  a  definite  meaning  in 
the  Scriptures.  It  means  the  announcement  of  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation through  Christ,  and  the  offer  of  that  salvation  to  every 
one  that  believes.  This  Gosjoel,  Paul  says,  was  preached  before 
unto  Abraham.  The  pious  Hebrews  are,  therefore,  described  as 
Qrovs  TrporjXTriKOTa^  iv  rw  XpicTTw'^  those  who  hoped  in  Christ  before 
his  advent.  (Eph.  i.  12.)  •  This  promise  of  redemption  made  to 
Abraham  was  that  "  unto  which,"  Paul  says,  "  our  twelve  tribes, 
instantly  serving  God  day  and  night,  hope  to  come."  (Acts 
xxvi.  7.)  The  condition  of  all  these  Abrahamic  promises  was 
faith.  This  the  Apostle  abundantly  teaches,  especially  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  Romans  and  the  third  chapter  of  Galatians. 
Abraham  believed  in  the  promise  of  the  birth  of  Isaac.  (Rom. 
iv.  19,  20.)  Those  of  his  descendants  who  believed  in  the  prom- 
ises of  national  blessings  made  to  the  Hebrews,  received  those 
blessings,  those  who  believed  in  the  promise  of  redemption  through 
Christ  were  made  partakers  of  that  redemption. 

Such  being  the  nature  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  it 
is  plain  that  so  far  as  its  main  element  is  concerned,  it  is  still  in 
force.  It  is  the  covenant  of  grace  under  which  we  now  live,  and 
upon  which  the  ChufcTi  is  now  founded.  This  cannot  be  douBted 
by  any  who  admit  the  account  just  given  of  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant. This  is  clear  because  the  promise  is  the  same.  Paul  .says 
(Gal.  iii.  14)  that  the  blessing  promised  to  Abraham  has  come 
upon  us.  In  his  speech  before  Agrippa,  he  said  :  "  I  stand,  and  am 
judged  for  the  hope  of  the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our  fatliers. 
....  For  which  hope's  sake,  king  Agrippa,  I  am  accused  of  tlie 
Jews."  (Acts  xxvi.  6,  7.)  As  the  promise  is  the  same,  so  also 
the  condition  is  the  same.     The  Apostle  argues  that  men  now 


§  10.]  BAPTISM   OF   INFANTS.  551 

must  be  justified  by  faith,  because  Abraham  was  thus  justified. 
Christians,  therefore,  are  said  to  be  the  sons  or  heirs  of  Abraham, 
because  faith  in  the  promise  of  redemption  secures  their  redemp- 
tion just  as  faith  in  the  same  promise  secured  his.  And  he  tells 
the  Galatians,  "  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  (Gal.  iii.  29.)  This  doc- 
trine, that  the  Church  now  rests  on  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in 
other  words,  that  the  plan  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel 
was  revealed  to  Abraham  and  to  the  other  Old  Testament  saints, 
and  that  they  were  saved  just  as  men  since  the  advent  of  Christ 
are  saved,  by  faith  in  the  promised  seed,  is  not  a  matter  incident- 
ally revealed.  It  is  Avrought  into  the  very  substance  of  the  Gos- 
pel. It  is  involved  in  all  the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  who  said  that 
He  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;  and  who  commanded  in- 
quirers to  search  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  if  they  would 
learn  what  He  taught.  The  Apostles  did  the  same  thing.  The 
Bereans  were  commended,  because  they  searched  the  Scriptures 
daily  to  see  whether  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Apostles  ac- 
corded with  that  infallible  standard.  (Acts  xvii.  11.)  The  mes- 
sengers of  Christ  constantly  quoted  the  Old  Testament  in  support 
of  their  teachings.  Paul  says  that  the  Gospel  which  he  preached 
had  been  taught  already  in  the  law  and  the  prophets.  (Rom.  iii. 
21.)  He  tells  the  Gentiles  that  they  were  grafted  in  the  old 
olive-tree  and  made  partakers  of  its  root  and  fatness. 

The  conclusion  is  that  God  has  ever  had  but  one  Church  in  the 
world.  The  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  our  Lord  ;  the 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  is  our  covenant  God  and 
Father ;  our  Saviour  was  the  Saviour  of  the  saints  who  lived 
before  his  advent  in  the  flesh.  The  divine  person  who  delivered 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt ;  who  led  them  through  the  wilder- 
ness ;  who  appeared  in  his  glory  to  Isaiah  in  the  temple ;  towards 
whose  coming  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  God  were  turned  in  faith 
and  hope  from  the  beginning,  is  He  whom  we  recognize  as  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  He, 
therefore,  who  was  the  head  of  the  theocracy  is  the  head  of  the 
Church.  The  blood  which  He  shed  for  us,  was  shed  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  as  much  "  for  the  redemption  of  the 
transgressions  which  Avere  under  the  first  testament "  (Heb.  ix. 
15),  as  for  us  and  for  our  salvation.  The  promise  unto  which 
the  twelve  tribes,  instantly  serving  God  day  and  night,  hoped 
to  come  (Acts  xxvi.  7),  is  the  promise  on  which  we  rely.  The 
faith  which   saved  Abraham  was,    both   as   to   its   nature   and 


552       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

as  to  its  object,  that  wliicli  is  the  condition  of  salvation  under  the 
Gospel.  "  The  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and 
maker  is  God  "  (Heb.  xi.  10),  is  "  Jerusalem  the  golden,"  the 
heaven  to  which  we  aspire. 

Fifth  Proposition.  The  terms  of  admission  into  the  Church 
before  the  Advent  were  the  same  that  are  required  for  admis' 
sion  into  the  Christian  Church. 

Those  terms  were  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  the  true 
religion,  a  promise  of  obedience,  and  submission  to  the  appointed 
rite  of  initiation.  Every  sincere  Israelite  really  received  Jehovah 
as  his  God,  relied  upon  all  his  promises,  and  especially  upon  the 
promise  of  redemption  through  the  seed  of  Abraham.  He  not 
only  bound  himseK  to  obey  the  law  of  God  as  then  revealed,  but 
sincerely  endeavoured  to  keep  all  his  commandments.  Those 
who  were  Israelites  only  in  name  or  form,  or,  as  the  Apostle  ex- 
presses it,  were  "  Jews  outwardly,"  made  the  same  professions 
and  engagements,  but  did  so  only  with  the  lips  and  not  with  the 
heart.  If  any  from  among  the  heathen  assayed  to  enter  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord,  they  were  received  upon  the  terms  above 
specified,  and  to  a  place  equal  to,  and  in  some  cases  better  than, 
that  of  sons  and  of  daughters.  If_^»yHfsraelite  renounced  the 
religion  of  his  fathers,  he  was  cut  off  from  among  the  people. 
All  this  is  true  in  reference  to  the  Church  that  now  is..  The 
Christian  Church  requires  of  those  whom  it  receives  to  member- 
ship in  visible  communion,  nothing  more  than  a  credible  profes- 
sion of  faith,  the  promise  of  obedience  to  Christ,  and  submission 
to  baptism  as  the  rite  of  initiation.  There  has,  therefore,  been; 
no  change  of  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  Church,  effected  by' 
the  introduction  of  the  Gospel. 

Sixth  Proposition.     Infants  ivere  Members  of  the  Church  under 
the  Old  Testament  Economy. 

This  is  conclusively  proved  by  the  fact  that  infants,  by  the 
command  of  God,  were  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  their 
birth.  It  is  indeed  said  that  circumcision  Avas  the  sign  of  t]ie 
national  covenant  between  God  and  the  Hebrews  ;  and,  there- 
fore, that  its  administration  to  cliildren  was  only  a  recognition 
of  their  citizenship  in  the  cominon\ve:ilth  of  Israel. 

To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  under  the  old  economy, 
the  Church  and-.State  werejdentical.  No  man  could  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  one  without  being  a  member  of  the  other.     Exclusion ' 


§  10.]  BAPTISM   OF   INFANTS.  553 

from  the  one  was  exclusion  from  the  other.  In  the  pure  the- 
ocracy the  high  priest  was  the  head  of  tlie  State  as  well  as  the 
head  of  the  Churcli.  The  priests  and  Levites  were  civil  as  well  as 
religious  officers.  The  sacrifices,  and  the  festivals,  even  the  Pass- 
over, ever  regarded  as  a  sacrament,  were  national  as  well  as  relig- 
ious services.  If,  therefore,  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal  of 
membership  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  it  was  a  sign  and  seal  of  mem- 
bership in  the  Hebrew  Church.  All  this  arose  from  the  nature 
of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham.  In  that  covenant,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  included  both  national  and  religious  promises.  God 
selected  the  descendants  of  that  patriarch  through  Isaac  to  be  a 
people  peculiar  to  himself,  He  constituted  them  a  nation  to  be 
secluded  and  hedged  around  from  other  nations.  He  gave  them 
the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  habitation,  and  He  enacted  for  them 
a  code  of  laws,  embracing  their  civil,  national,  social,  personal, 
and  relio-ious  duties.  All  these  enactments  were  minoled  to- 
gether.  The  people  were  not  regarded  as  bearing  distinct  relations 
to  the  magistrate  and  to  God.  All  their  obligations  were  to 
Him.  They  were  a  holy  people  ;  a  Church  in  the  form  of  a  na- 
tion. The  great  promise,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  promise  of 
the  redemption  of  the  world  by  the  Messiah.  To  this  ever;y- 
thing  else  was  subordinate.  The  main  design  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Hebrews  as  a  distinct  nation,  and  of  their  separation  from 
all  other  people,  was  to  keep  alive  the  knowledge  of  that  promise. 
Almost  the  whole  significancy  and  value  of  the  priesthood,  sacri- 
fices, and  temple  service,  were  to  prefigure  the  person,  offices,  and 
work  of  the  Messiah.  To  the  Hebrews  as  a  people  were  com- 
mitted the  "  oracles  of  God  ;  "  this  was  their  grand  distinction. 
Those  oracles  had  reference  to  the  great  work  of  redemption. 
To  suppose  a  man  to  be  a  Jew,  and  not  at  least  a  professed  be- 
liever in  those  promises  and  predictions,  is  a  contradiction.  A 
man,  therefore,,  was  a  member  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  only 
in  virtue  of  his  being  a  member  of  the  Jewish  Church  ;  at  least, 
he  could  not  be  the  former  without  being  the  latter.  Conse- 
quently, every  child  who  was  circumcised  in  evidence  that  he  was 
one  of  the  chosen  people,  was  thereby  sealed  as  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  God  as  it  then  existed. 

Secondly,  that  circumcision  was  not  the  sign  exclusively  of  the 
national  covenant  with  the  Hebrews,  is  plain  because  it  was  en- 
joined upon  Abraham  and  continued  in  practice  hundreds  of  years 
before  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai,  when  the  people 
were  inaugurated  as  a  nation.     It  was  instituted  as  the  sign  of 


554       PART  III.    Ch.  XX. —  the  ime.vns  of  grace. 

the  covenant  (that  is  the  Scriptural  and  proper  word)  made  with 
Abraham.  The  essential  features  of  that  covenant  we  learn  from 
such  passages  as  Genesis  xii.  3,  "  In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  xvii.  7,  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee."  These  passages  are  explained  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. They  are  shown  to  refer,  not  to  temporal  or  national 
blessings,  but  to  the  blessings  of  redemption.  Thus  in  Romans 
XV.  8,  it  is  said,  "  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision 
for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the 
fathers."  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  jcome  on  us.  (Gal.  iii.  14.)  This 
covenant,  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  argue,  "  that  was  confirmed  be- 
fore of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 
none  effect."  In  short,  the  whole  New  Testament  is  designed  to 
show  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  the  promises 
therein  contained,  were  executed  and  fulfilled  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Of  that  covenant  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal. 

Thirdly,  this  is  directly  asserted  by  the  Apostle  in  Romans  iv. 
9—12,  where  he  proves  that  circumcision  cannot  be  the  ground  of 
justification,  because  Abraham  was  justified  before  he  was  circum 
cised,  and  "  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  faith  which  he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised." 
This  is  saying  that  circumcision  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant  which 
promises  salvation  on  the  condition  of  faith.  That  is,  it  is  tlie 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  of  the  plan  of  salvation  which 
has  been  the  only  ground  of  hope  for  man  since  his  apostasy.  If, 
therefore,  children  were  circumcised  by  the  command  of  God,  it 
was  because  they  were  included  in  the  covenant  made  with  their 
fathers. 

Fourthly,  that  circumcision  was  not  merely  a  civil  or  nntional 
institution,  is  further  plain  from  its  spiritual  import.  It  signifies 
the  cleansing  from  sin,  just  as  baptism  now  does.  Thus  we  read 
even  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart. 
(Deut.  X.  16  ;  Jer.  iv.  4  ;  Ezek.  xliv.  7.)  Therefore  uncircum- 
cised lips  are  impure  lips,  and  an  uncircumcised  heart  is  an  un- 
clean heart.  (Ex.  vi.  12  ;  Lev.  xxvi.  41.  See,  also,  Acts  vii.  T)!.) 
Paul  says  the  true  circumcision  is  not  that  wliich  is  outward  in 
the  flesh  ;  but  that  which  is  inward,  of  the  heart,  by  the  Spirit. 
(Rom.  ii.  28,  29.)      Tlierefore  the  Apostle  speaking  of  himself 


§  10.]  BAPTISM    OF    INFANTS.  ooo 

and  of  other  believers  says,  "  We  are  the  circumcision,  which 
worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have 
no  confidence  in  the  flesh."  (PhiL  iii.  3.)  Such  being  the  spir- 
itual import  of  circumcision,  its  reference  to  the  national  covenant 
was  a  very  subordinate  matter.  Its  main  design  was  to  signify 
and  seal  the  promise  of  deliverance  from  sin  through  the  redemp- 
tion to  be  effected  by  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham. 

Children,  therefore,  were  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace  as 
revealed  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  consequently  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  as  it  was  then  constituted.  In  the  sight  of 
God  parents  and  children  are  one.  The  former  are  the  author- 
ized representatives  of  tlie  latter  ;  they  act  for  them  ;  they  con- 
tract obligations  in  their  name.  In  all  cases,  therefore,  where 
parents  enter  into  covenant  with  God,  they  bring  their  children 
with  them.  The  covenant  made  with  Adam  included  all  his 
posterity ;  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  was  to  him  and  to  his 
seed  after  him  ;  and  when  the  Mosaic  covenant  was  solemnly  in- 
augurated, it  was  said,  "  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the 
Lord  your  God  ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and 
your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones,  your 
wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  from  the  hewer  of 
thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water  :  that  thou  shouldst  enter 
into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  which 
the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day."  (Dent.  xxix. 
10—12.)  It  is  vain  to  say  that  children  cannot  make  contracts  or 
take  an  oath.  Their  parents  can  act  for  them  ;  and  not  only 
bring  them  under  obligation,  but  secure  for  them  the  benefits  of 
the  covenants  into  which  they  thus  vicariously  enter.  If  a  man 
joined  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  he  secured  for  his  children 
the  benefits  of  the  theocracy,  unless  .they  willingly  renounced 
them.  And  so  when  a  believer  adopts  the  covenant  of  grace,  he 
brings  his  children  within  that  covenant,  in  the  sense  that  God 
promises  to  give  them,  in  his  own  good  time,  all  the  benefits  of 
redemption,  provided  they  do  not  willingly  renounce  their  baptis- 
mal engagements. 

This  is  really  the  turning  point  in  the  controversy  concerning 
infant  church -membership.  If  the  Church  is  one  under  both  dis- 
pensations ;  if  infants  were  members  of  the  Church  under  the 
theocracy,  then  they  are  members  of  the  Church  now,  unless  the 
contrary  can  be  proved.  The  next  proposition,  therefore,  on  this 
subject,  to  be  established  is,  the 


656  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF    GRACE. 

Seventh  Proposition^  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament 
which  justifies  the  Exclusion  of  the  Children  of  Believers  from 
Membership  in  the    Church. 

The  "  onus  probandi  "  rests  on  those  who  take  the  negative  on 
this  subject.  If  children  are  to  be  deprived  of  a  birthright 
which  they  have  enjoyed  ever  since  there  was  a  Chui'ch  on  earth, 
there  must  be  some  positive  command  for  their  exclusion,  or  some 
clearly  revealed  change  in  the  conditions  of  membership,  which 
renders  such  exclusion  necessary.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that 
Christ  did  not  give  any  command  no  longer  to  consider  the 
children  of  believers  as  members  of  the  Church,  neither  has 
there  been  any  change  in  the  conditions  of  church-membership 
which  necessarily  works  their  exclusion.  Those  conditions  are 
now  what  they  were  from  the  beginning.  It  was  inevitable,  there- 
fore, when  Christ  commanded  his  Apostles  to  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  should  act  on  the  principle  to  which 
they  had  always  been  accustomed.  When  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, a  parent  joined  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  he  brought 
his  minor  children  with  him.  When,  therefore,  the  Apostles 
baptized  a  head  of  a  family,  it  was  a  matter  of  course,  that  they 
should  baptize  his  infant  children.  We  accordingly  find  several 
cases  of  such  household  baptism  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  In  Acts  xvi.  15,  it  is  said  Lydia  "  was  baptized,  and 
her  household,"  and  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi  (ver.  33),  that  '•'  he 
and  all  his  "  were  baptized  ;  and  in  1  Corinthians  i.  IG,  Paul  says 
that  he  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanas.  The  Apostles, 
therefore,  acted  on  the  principle  which  had  always  been  acted  on 
under  the  old  economy.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  history 
of  the  Apostolic  period  is  very  brief,  and  also  that  Christ  sent  the 
Apostles,  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and,  therefore, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  so  few  instances  of  household  baptism  are 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  The  same  remark  applies  sub- 
stantially to  the  age  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  Apostles. 
The  Cluirch  increased  with  gi'eat  rapidity,  but  its  accessions  were 
from  without ;  adult  converts  from  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
who  in  becoming  Christians,  brouglit,  as  a  matter  of  course,  their 
children  with  them  into  the  fold  of  Christ.  Little,  therefore, 
during  this  period  is  heard  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  As  soon, 
however,  as  children  born  within  the  Church  constituted  the 
chief  source  of  supply,  then  we  hear  more  of  baptisms  for  the 


§  10.]  BAi'TISM    OF   IXFA^'TS.  557 

dead ;  the  ranks  of  tlie  Church,  as  they  were  thinned  by  the  de- 
cease of  beUevers,  being  filled  by  those  who  were  baptized  to  take 
their  places.  In  the  time  of  Tertullian  and  Origen  infant  bap- 
tism is  spoken  of,  not  only  as  the  prevailing  usage  of  the  Church, 
but  as  having  been  practised  from  the  beginning.  When  Pela- 
gius  was  sorely  pressed  by  Augustine  mtli  the  argument  in  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  derived  from  the  baptism  of 
infants,  he  did  not  venture  to  evade  the  argument  by  denying 
either  the  prevalence  of  such  baptisms  or  the  divine  warrant  for 
them.  He  could  only  say  that  they  were  baptized,  not  on  account 
of  what  they  then  needed,  but  of  what  they  might  need  hereafter. 
The  fact  of  infant  baptism  and  its  divine  sanction  were  ad- 
mitted. These  facts  are  here  referred  to  only  as  a  collateral 
proof  that  the  practice  of  the  New  Testament  Church  did  not  in 
this  matter  differ  from  that  of  the  Church  as  constituted  before 
the  advent  of  Christ. 

The  conduct  of  our  Lord  in  relation  to  children,  in  its  bearing 
on  this  subject  must  not  be  overlooked.  So  far  from  excluding 
them  from  the  Church  in  whose  bosom  they  had  always  been 
cherished.  He  called  them  the  lambs  of  his  flock,  took  them  into 
his  arms,  and  blessed  them,  and  said,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  If  members  of  his  kingdom  in  heaven,  Avhy  should  they 
be  excluded  from  his  kingdom  on  earth  ?  Whenever  a  father  or 
mother  seeks  admission  to  the  Christian  Church,  their  heart 
prompts  them  to  say :  Here  Lord  am  I  and  the  children  whom 
thou  hast  given  me.  And  his  gracious  answer  has  always  been  : 
Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not. 

Eiglitli  Proposition.      Children  need,  and  are  capable  of  receiv- 
ing the  Benefits  of  Redemption. 

On  this  point  all  Christians  are  agreed.  All  churches  —  the 
Greek,  the  Latin,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed  —  unite  in  the 
belief  that  infants  need  "the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  "  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  order  to  their 
salvation.  The  Reformed,  at  least,  do  not  believe  that  those 
blessings  are  tied  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  so  that  the  recep- 
tion of  baptism  is  necessary  to  a  participation  of  the  spiritual 
benefits  which  it  symbolizes  ;  but  all  agree  that  infants  are  saved 
by  Christ,  that  they  are  the  purchase  of  his  blood,  and  that  they 
need  expiation  and  regeneration.  They  are  united,  also,  in  be- 
lieving that  all  who  seek  the  benefits  of  the  work  of  Christ,  are 
bound  to  be  baptized  in  acknowledgment   of    its   necessity  and 


558  PART  III.     Ch.  XX.— the   means    OF   GRACE. 

of  tlieir  faith,  and  that  those  who  need,  but  cannot  seek,  use,  by 
the  ordinance  of  God,  entitled  to  receive  the  appointed  sign  and 
seal  of  redemption,  whenever  and  wherever  they  are  presented 
by  those  who  have  the  right  to  represent  them. 

§  11.    WTiose  Cldldren  are  eiitithd  to  Baptism  ? 

This  is  a  very  delicate,  difficult,  and  important  question.  No 
answer  Avhich  can  be  given  to  it  can  be  expected  to  give  general 
satisfaction.  The  answers  will  be  determined  by  the  views  taken 
of  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  the  design  of  the  sacraments. 
Probably  the  answer  which  would  include  most  of  the  views 
entertained  on  the  subject,  is,  that  the  children  of  the  members 
of  the  visible  Church,  and  those  for  whose  religious  training  such 
members  are  willing  to  become  responsible,  should  be  baptized. 
But  this  leaves  many  questions  undecided,  and  allows  room  for 
great  diversity  of  practice. 

Difference  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Usage. 

We  have  ah^eady  seen  under  the  old  dispensation,  (1.)  That  God 
made  a  nation  his  Church  and  his  Church  a  nation.  (2.)  Conse- 
quently that  membership  in  the  one  involved  membership  in  the 
other,  and  exclusion  from  the  one,  exclusion  from  the  other. 
(3.)  That  the  conditions  of  admission  to  the  Church  were,  there- 
fore, the  same  as  the  conditions  of  admission  into  the  common- 
wealth. (4.)  That  those  conditions  were  profession  of  faith  in  the 
true  religion,  and  a  promise  of  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  as  re- 
vealed in  his  word.  (5.)  That  the  State  exacted  this  profession 
and  enforced  this  obedience  so  far  as  the  external  conduct  was  con- 
cerned. All  the  people  were  required  to  be  circumcised,  to  offer 
sacrifices,  to  observe  the  festivals,  and  to  frequent  the  temple 
services.  And,  (6.)  That  this  was  God's  way  of  preserving  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  religion  in  that  age  of  the  world.  And  it 
succeeded,  \yhen  Christ  came,  the  uncorrupted  Scriptures  were 
read  in  the  synagogues  ;  the  sacrifices  as  divinely  appointed  were 
offered  in  the  temple ;  the  high  priest  in  his  offices  and  work  still 
stood  before  the  people,  as  the  type  of  Him  who  wiis  to  come. 
Under  this  system  there  could  be  no  question  as  to  whose  chil- 
dren were  to  be  circumcised. 

When  Christ  came  and  broke  doAvn  the  wall  of  partition 
between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  announced  liis  Gospel  aa 
designed  and  adapted  for  all  men,  all  this  was  changed.  It  fol- 
lowed from  the  fact  that  the  Church  was  to  embrace  all  nations', 


§11.J     BAPTISM.     WHOSE   CHILDREN   TO   BE   BAPTIZED?     559 

(1.)  That  the  Church  and  State  could  no  longer  be  united  or 
identified  as  they  had  been  under  the  theocracy.  The  Christian 
Church  at  the  first  was  established  in  an  enemy's  country.  For 
three  centuries  it  was  not  only  independent  and  separate  from  the 
State,  but  it  was  in  every  way  opposed  and  persecuted  b}^  the 
civil  power.  It  is  still  the  fact  that  the  Christian  Church  exists 
in  Pagan  and  Mohammedan  countries.  (2.)  From  the  necessity 
of  the  case  it  is  a  body  independent  of  the  State.  It  has  its  own 
organization,  its  own  laws,  its  own  officers,  and  its  own  conditions 
of  membership.  It  has  the  right  to  admmister  its  own  discipline 
agreeably  to  the  laws  of  Christ  its  king  and  head.  (3.)  As  it 
was  intended  by  Christ  that  his  Church  should  be  thus  catholic 
or  universal,  existing  under  all  forms  of  human  government, 
civilized  or  savage,  it  was  clearly  his  intention  that  it  should  be 
thus  independent  and  distinct  from  the  State.  He  declared  that 
his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  It  is  not  of  the  same  kind 
with  worldly  kingdoms  ;  it  has  different  ends  to  accomplish,  and 
different  means  for  the  attainment  of  those  ends.  It  is  spiritual, 
that  is,  concerned  with  the  religious  or  spiritual,  as  distinguished 
from  the  secular  interests  of  men.  It  moves,  therefore,  in  a  dif- 
ferent sphere  from  the  State,  and  the  two  need  never  come  into 
collision.  (4.)  As  the  Cliurcl;/ since  the  adventyis  identical  with 
the  Church  which  existed  before  the  advent,  although  so  different 
in  its  organization,  in  its  ofiicers,  and  in  its  mode  of  worship,  the 
conditions  of  church-membership  are  now  what  they  were  then. 
Those  conditions  still  are  credible  profession  of  faith,  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  divine  law.  But  it  is  no  longer  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  require  such  profession  or  to  enforce  such  obedience,  so  that 
every  citizen  of  the  State  should  be  "ipso  facto"  a  member  of  the 
Church.  The  two  bodies  are  now  distinct.  A  man  may  be  a 
member  of  the  one,  and  not  a  member  of  the  other.  The  Church 
has  the  right  to  exercise  its  own  discretion,  within  the  limits  pre- 
scribed by  Cluist,  as  to  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  members. 

Doctrine  of  the    Church  of  Rome  on  the  Baptisyn  of  Children. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  Romish  theory  of  the 
Church  is  founded  on  that  of  the  ancient  theocracy.  That  theory, 
however,  is  necessarily  modified  by  the  catholicity  of  the  Church. 
Being  designed  for  all  nations,  it  could  not  be  identified  with  any 
one  nation.  National  citizenship  is  no  longer  the  condition  of 
church- membership.     Rome,  however,  teaches, — 

1.  That  the  Church  is,  in  its  essential  character,  an  external, 


5fi0  PART   in.     Cu.   XX. -THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

organized  society,  so  that  no  man  can  be  a  member  of  Christ's 
body  and  a  partaker  of  his  life,  who  is  not  a  member  of  that 
society. 

2.  The  Church  is  an  institute  of  salvation.  Its  sacraments  are 
exclusively  the  channels  for  conveying  to  men  the.  benefits  of  the 
redemption  of  Christ. 

3.  As  the  sacraments  are  the  only  channels  of  grace,  no  gracious 
affections  or  fruits  of  the  Spirit  can  be  required  of  those  who 
receive  them.  Being  designed  to  make  men  good,  goodness  can- 
not be  the  condition  of  their  reception  or  efficacy. 

4.  The  Sacraments,  and  especially  baptism,  being  thus  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  apply  that  they  should 
be  administered  to  them  and  to  their  children. 

5.  With  regard  to  those  children  Avhose  parents,  through  igno- 
rance or  indifference,  neglect  to  bring  them  to  the.  Church  for 
baptism,  they  may  be  presented  by  any  one  who  takes  an  interest 
in  their  salvation,  that  they  may  be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  or  on  that  of  those  who  are  willing  to  act  as  their  spon- 
sors. It  is  no  matter,  therefore,  whether  the  parents  of  such 
children  are  Christians,  Jews,  Mohammedans,  or  Pagans,  as  they 
all  need,  so  they  are  all  entitled  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 
To  exclude  them  from  baptism,  is  to  exclude  them  from  heaven. 

The  Roman  Catechism^  declares  that  the  people  must  be  taught 
that  our  Lord  lias  enjoined  baptism  on  all  men,  so  that  they  ay  ill 
all  perish  eternally  unless  they  be  renewed  by  the  grace  of  bap- 
tism, whether  their  parents  be  believers  or  unbelievers.  In  tho 
answer  to  the  next  question  the  Scriptural  authority  for  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  is  given  ;  and  in  answer  to  the  following  question 
it  is  taught  that  infants,  when  baptized,  receive  the  grace  signi-' 
fied,  not  because  they  believe  by  the  assent  of  their  own  mind, 
but  because  of  the  faith  of  their  parents  if  believers,  and  if  not, 
then  by  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal ;  and  they  may  be 
properly  offered  for  baptism  by  any  one  who  is  willing  to  present 
them,  by  whose  charity  they  are  brought  into  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  Although  not  identified  with  the  State,  the  Church  theoreti- 
cally absorbs  the  State,  and  does  so  in  fact  wherever  it  has  the 
ascendancy.  The  Church  is  a  body  which  has  two  arms  —  a  spir- 
itual and  a  secular.  It  demands  that  the  State  require  all  its 
subjects  to  profess  its  faith,  to  receive  its  sacraments,  and  to  sub- 
mit to  its  discipline  ;  and  where  it  has  not  the  power  thus  to  ren- 

1  II.  ii.  quaes.  25  [31,  xxx.] ;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  274. 


\ 


§11.]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE    CIIILUllEX   TO   BE   BU'TIZED?     ^.bl 

der  the  State  its  tool,  it  openly  asserts  its  right  to  do  so  One  of 
the  encyclical  letters  of  tlic  present  pope  so  openly  denied  tlie 
liberty  of  conscience,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the  lawfulness 
of  tolerating  any  other  religion  than  that  of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome, 
that  the  late  Emperor  of  the  French  forbade  its  publication  in 
France ;  yet  the  Archbishop  of  New  York  read  it  in  his  cathedral 
to  an  immense  and  approving  audience. 

The  Roman  Church,  therefore,  believing  that  baptism  is  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  baptizes  all  children  presented  for  that  ordinance 
without  regard  to  their  immediate  parentage  or  remote  descent. 

Theories  on  tohich  many  Protestants  conteyid  for  the  propriety 
of  the  baptism  of  children  other  than  those  of  believing  par- 
ents. 

There  are  two  principles  on  which  the  baptism  of  chikhv'U 
whose  parents  are  not  members  of  the  visible  Church,  is  defended 
The  first  is,  that  the  promise  is  to  parents  and  their  children,  and 
their   children's    children    even   to   the    thousandth    generation. 
Children,  therefore,  whose  immediate  parents  may  have  no  con- 
nection with  the  Church,  have  not  forfeited  their  privileges  as 
children  of  the  covenant.     If  the  promise  be  to  them,  its  sign 
and  seal  belongs  to  them.     The  second  principle  is,  that  of  spir- 
itual adoption.     Children  who  are  orphans,  or  whose  parents  are 
unfit  or  unwilling  to  bring  them  up  in  a  Christian  manner,  may 
be  so  far  adopted  by  those  willing  and  quahfied  to   assume  the 
responsibihty  of  their  religious  education  as  to   become  proper 
subiects  of  baptism.     This  principle  is  sanctioned  m  the  bcrip- 
tures.     In  Genesis  xvii.  12,  God  said  to  Abraham,  -  He  that  is 
eio'ht  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man  child 
iiryour  o-enerations  ;  he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with 
money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  thy  seed."     Our  Churchy  on 
the  same  principle  in  1787  enjoined  with  regard  to   apprentices 
that  "  Christian  masters  and  mistresses,  whose  rehgious  profes- 
sions and  conduct  are  such  as  to  give  them  a  right   to   the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  for  their  omi  children,  may  and  ought  to  dedi- 
cate the  children  of  their  household  to  God,  in  that  ordinanc^, 
when  they  have  no  scruple  of  conscience  to  the  contrary.       In 
iSl(>,  it  was  decided,  -  (1.^  It  is  the  duty  of  masters  who  are 
memoers  of  the  Church  to  present  the  children  of  parents  in 
servitude  to  the  ordinance   of  baptism,  provided  they  are  in  a 
situation  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,  thus  securing  to  them  the  rich   advantages  which  the  Gos- 


VOL.    III. 


662         PART  m.     Ch.   XX. —  THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

pel  provides.  (2.)  It  is  the  duty  of  Christ's  ministers  to  incul- 
cate this  doctrine,  and  to  baptize  all  children  of  this  description 
when  presented  by  their  masters."  On  the  baptism  of  heathen 
children  the  Church  in  1843  decided  that  such  children  are  to  be 
baptized,  "  who  are  so  committed  to  the  missions,  or  other  Chris- 
tian tuition,  as  to  secm-e  effectually  their  entire  religious  educa- 
tion." 1 

It  was  on  the  authority  of  the  two  principles  above  mentioned 
that  many  of  the  most  distinguished  theologians  of  Holland  con- 
tend that  foundlings,  whose  parents  were  unknown,  illegitimate 
children,  and  the  childi'en  of  excommunicated  persons,  should  be 
admitted  to  baptism.  The  question  whether  heathen  .children, 
committed  to  the  care  of  Christian  missionaries,  should  be  bap- 
tized was  submitted  to  the  Synod  of  Dort.  There  was  a  diversity 
of  opmion  on  the  subject  among  the  members,  but  the  majority 
decided  against  it ;  not,  as  would  appear,  from  the  language  em- 
ployed, because  of  either  of  the  above  principles  being  denied, 
but  because  of  the  uncertain  tenure  by  which  such  children  were 
held.  It  was  feared  that  they  might  return  to  heathenism,  and 
thus  the  scandal  of  baptized  persons  practising  heathen  rites  be 
afforded.^ 

A  second  theory  advanced  on  this  subject  was  that  of  a  two- 
fold covenant ;  one  external,  the  other  internal ;  answering  to  the 
distinction  between  the  Church  visible  and  invisible.  God,  under 
the  old  dispensation,  entered  into  a  covenant  vith  the  Hebrew 
nation  constituting  them  his  visible  Church,  which  covenant  was 
distinct  from  that  in  which  eternal  life  was  promised  to  those  that 
truly  believe  in  the  Redeemer  who  was  to  come.  The  conditions 
of  admission  mto  this  external,  visible  society,  were  outward  pro- 
fession of  the  true  religion,  and  external  obedience.  The  condi- 
tion of  admission  into  the  invisible  Church,  was  true  and  saving 
faith.  The  sacraments  were  attached  to  the  external  covenant. 
All  who  made  this  external  profession  and  yielded  this  outward 
obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law,  were  of  right  entitled  to  circum- 
cision, to  the  passover,  and  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  theocrac}'. 
So  it  is  now.  according  to  the  theory  in  hand.     Christ  designed 

1  Baird's  Digest  of  the  Acts,  Deliverances,  and  Testimonies  of  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  pp.  106,  107;  edit.  1856,  pp.  82,  83. 

2  Doctrina  Christiance  lidiyionis  per  Aphorismos  sumviatim  Des^ripta.  Editio  sexta. 
Cui  nunc  accudit  Yn-oTU7rw<Ttj  lludlogiie  Elencticaj  in  usum-Scholarum  Doniesticariim  Cam- 
pegii  Vitringffi.     Curante  Jfartino  Vitringa,  cap.  xxiv.    Lyons,  1779,  vol.  vii.  p.  15-3,  note  I. 

Bernhardini  de  Moor,  Cvmmentarius  Perpetuus  in  Johannis  Marchii  Compendium  The- 
ologia  Christiance.     Pars  v:  cap.  30,  §  19,  y. ;  Lyons,  1768,  voL  v.  pp.  500-502. 


§11.]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE    CHILDREN   TO   BE   BAPTIZED?     563 

to  form  an  external,  visible  Church,  fiu'nished  with  a  constitution, 
laws,  and  proper  officers  for  their  administration.  The  conditions 
of  admission  into  this  visible  society,  were  the  profession  of  spec- 
ulative, or  historical  faith  in  his  religion,  and  external  conformity 
to  its  laws  and  the  laws  of  his  Church.  To  this  external  body 
all  the  ordinances  of  his  religion  are  attached.  Those,  there- 
fore, who  apply  for  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  do  not  profess 
to  be  the  regenerated  children  of  God.  They  simply  profess  to 
be  believers  as  distinguished  from  infidels  or  scorners,  and  to  be 
desirous  to  avail  themselves  of  Church  privileges  for  their  o^vn 
benefit  and  for  the  good  of  their  children.  From  this  body  Christ 
gathers  the  great  majority  of  his  own  people,  making  them  mem- 
bers of  his  mystical  body. 

De  Moor  gives  a  long  account  of  the  controversy.  Vitringa,  it 
appears,  strenuously  opposed  this  theory  of  a  twofold  covenant  in 
its  application  to  the  New  Testament  economy.  Marck  as  stren- 
uously defended  it.^ 

This  seems  substantially  the  ground  taken  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Stoddard,  grandfather  of  President  Edwards.  Mr.  Stoddard  pub- 
lished, in  1707,  a  sermon  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  he 
maintained,  "  That  sanctification  is  not  a  necessary  qualification 
to  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  and  "  That  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  a  converting  ordinance."  This  was  answered  in  a  "  Dis- 
sertation" by  Dr.  Increase  Mather.  To  this  Mr.  Stoddard  re- 
phed  in  "  An  A}  peal  to  the  Learned  ;  being  a  Vindication  of  the 
right  of  visible  saints  to  the  Lord's  Svipper,  though  they  be  des- 
titute of  a  saving  work  of  God's  Spirit  on  their  hearts  ;  against 
the  exceptions  of  Mr.  Increase  Mather."  President  Edwards  suc- 
ceeded his  grandfather  as  pastor  of  the  Church  in  Northampton, 
Mass.,  in  1727,  and  for  twenty  years  continued  to  act  on  the 
same  principle  on  this  subject  as  his  grandfather.  Having  be- 
come convinced  that  that  principle  was  unscriptural,  he  published, 
in  1749,  "An  humble  Inquiry  into  the  Rules  of  the  Word  of 
God,  concerning  the  qualifications  requisite  to  a  complete  stand- 
ing and  full  commmiion  in  the  visible  Christian  Church."  His 
design  was  to  prove  that  no  one  should  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table  who  is  not  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church  truly  regenerate. 
This  doctrine  was  very  obnoxious  to  the  people  of  his  charge, 
and  opposed  to  the  sentiment  and  practice  of  the  majority  of  the 
neighbouring  churches.^     The  difficulty  arising  from  this  contro- 

1  De  Moor,  ut  supra,  cap.  xxx.  §  xvi.  vol.  v.  pp.  470-473. 

9  It  is  stated  ia  the  Life  of  President  Edwards,  by  Sereno  E.  Dwight,  prefixed  to  an 


664         PART  III.     Cn.   XX.  — THE  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

versy  was  one  of  the  principal  causes  which  led  to  the  dismission 
of  President  Edwards  from  his  pastoral  charge  at  Northampton. 
The  views  of  Edwards  soon  gained  the  ascendancy  in  the  Evan- 
gelical churches  of  New  England,  and  to  a  great  extent  also 
among  Presbyterians. 

The  Rev.  John  Blair,  a  prominent  minister  of  our  Church,  took 
substantially  the  ground  of  a  twofold  covenant.  Mr.  Blair,  as 
well  as  his  more  distinguished  brother.  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  took 
an  active  part  with  Whitefield  and  the  Tennents  m  the  great 
revival  which  occurred  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  and 
belonged  to  what  were  called  the  New  Lights  in  the  controversy 
which  issued  in  the  schism  of  1741.  He  does  not,  indeed,  admit 
of  a  twofold  covenant,  but  he  teaches  the  same  doctrine  which 
that  expression  was  intended  to  assert.  The  Church  of  Christ, 
he  says,  is  very  properly  distinguished  as  visible  and  invisible. 
By  the  former  is  meant  "  the  whole  number  of  true  believers 
wherever  they  are."  "  The  visible  Church  consists  of  all  those 
who  by  an  external  profession  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and 
subjection  to  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  Christ,  appear  as  a 
society  separated  from  the  world,  and  dedicated  to  God  and  his 
service.  In  this  view,  in  the  present  imperfect  state,  the  Church 
comprehends  branches  that  are  withered,  as  well  as  those  that 
bear  fruit.  Now  the  covenant  of  grace  subsists  between  the 
blessed  God  and  the  Church,  as  such  a  visible  Society ,i  and  is 
rendered  visible  by  a  visible  transaction  and  external  administra- 
tion in  various  ordinances  ;  and  comprehends  sundry  external 
privileges  for  the  advantage  and  spiritual  edification  of  the 
Church.  Here  are  not  two  covenants,  one  for  the  invisible 
Church  and  another  for  the  visible."  Gomarus,  a  leader  in  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  says  two  covenants  should  be  distinguished.  That 
with  the  visible  Church  he  calls  hypothetical,  that  with  the  in- 
visible Church  absolute.  In  the  main  point,  however,  they  agree, 
for  Mr.  Blair  goes  on  to  say  :  "It  is   [to]   the  covenant  of  grace 

edition  of  Edwards'  Works,  in  ten  vols.,  New  York,  1829,  vol.  i.  p.  307,  that  "  All  the 
churches  in  the  county,  except  two,  and  all  the  clergy,  except  three,  approved  of  the  lax 
mode  of  admission."     That  is,  were  opposed  to  Edwards'  doctrine  on  the  subject. 

1  To  this  sentence  IMr.  Blair  appends  the  following  note:  "  In  no  other  way  can  we -con- 
ceive the  covenant  to  subsist  between  God  and  believers  as  a  tluirch.  In  the  exercise  of 
faith,  believers  have  union  to,  and  communion  with  Jesus  Christ;  but  by  this  alone,  they 
could  have  no  fellowship  with  one  another;  for  each  one  could  only  be  conscious  of  his  own 
exercise  of  faith,  and  could  have  no  society  with  any  other  therein.  Whatever  real  rela- 
tion to  each  other  is  founded  in  their  common  union  to  Christ,  yet  they  could  not  at  all  per- 
ceive it.  They  would  be  members  of  Clirist,  but  utterly  detached  from  each  other,  and  so 
not  formally  a  body.  It  is  only  as  incorporated  in  the  visible  Church,  that  they  are  fitly 
placed  in  the  body,  and  have  any  knowledge  one  of  another,  and  so  have  fellowship." 


§11.]     BArriSM.     WHOSE    CHILDREN  TO   BE   BAPTIZED?     r.6"> 

in  this  view,  namely,  as  visibly  subsisting  between  God  and  his 
Church,  considered  as  a  visible  society,  a  public  body  separated 
and  distinguished  from  the  world,  and  dedicated  to  God,  that  the 
sacraments  are  annexed  as  visible  signs  and  seals  thereof."  ^ 

A  man,  therefore,  in  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  or  in  present- 
ing himself  or  his  children  for  baptism,  does  not  profess  to  be  a 
member  of  the  invisible,  but  only  of  the  visible  Church.  God  has 
commanded  men  not  to  steal,  and  not  to  neglect  their  religious 
duties ;  He  commands  them  to  pray  ;  to  hear  his  word  ;  to  attend 
the  assemblies  of  his  saints  gathered  for  his  worship  ;  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  and  to  commemorate  the  Redeemer's  death  in  the  way  of 
his  appointment.  All  these  duties  are  obligatory  ;  and  they  are 
all  to  be  performed  in  a  right  spirit.  But  a  man,  argues  INIr. 
Blair,  is  not  to  wait  mitil  he  thinks  himself  regenerate  and  is  so 
regarded  by  the  Church,  before  he  attempts  to  obey  them.  The 
sacraments,  he  says,^  "  are  not  instituted  to  be  visible  signs  of 
persons'  opinion  or  judgment  concerning  the  exercises  of  their 
own  hearts."  He  no  more  professes  to  be  regenerated  Avhen  he 
comes  to  be  baptized  than  when  he  prays.  His  prayer  is  from 
its  nature  a  profession  of  faith  in  the  divine  existence  and  perfec- 
tions, in  the  power  of  God  to  hear  and  answer  his  requests  ;  it  is 
a  confession  of  his  necessities  and  of  his  dependence.  And  this 
profession  and  confession  are  sincere  ;  so  sincere  that  it  is  not 
only  his  duty,  but  his  right  to  pray  —  a  right  which  no  man  may 
take  from  him.  In  like  manner  a  man  may  be,  in  the  same 
sense,  sincere  in  his  belief  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel ;  sincere  in 
his  desire  to  obey  the  command  of  Christ,  and  secure  the  benefits 
of  his  salvation.  "  When  the  sons  of  the  stranger,"  says  Mr. 
Blair,  "  are  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  are  con- 
vinced in  their  judgment  and  conscience,  they  are  true  and  ex- 
hibit the  true  religion  ;  that  they  are  bound  by  the  authority  of 
God  to  embrace  it,  and  yield  obedience  to  the  divine  laws  ;  it 
is  their  immediate  duty  to  embrace  it,  and  that  publicly  and 
avowedly  by  joining  themselves  to  the  Lord,  and  his  Church,  in 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  ;  and  thus  make  a  public  profession  of 
the  true  religion,  come  under  solemn  obligations  to  Avalk  in  the 
ways  of  God's  commandments,  and  under  the  care  and  discipline 

1  Essays  on,  I.  The  Nature,  Uses,  and  Subjects  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Ne70  Testament ; 
II.  On  Ref/eneration,  wherein  the  principle  <if  Spiritual  Life  thereby  implanted  is  pni'ticU' 
larly  considered  ;  III.  On  the  Nature  and  Use  oj"  the  Means  oj"  Grace.  By  John  Blair, 
A.  M.,  Pastor  of  the  Church  of  Good-Will  (alias  Wallkill),  in  the  Province  of  New  York. 
JTew  York:  printed  by  John  Holt,  at  the  Exchange,  1771.     Essay  i.  pp.  13-15. 

«  Jbid.  p.  35. 


566  PART  ILL     Ch.   XX.  — the  MEANS   OF    (iRACE. 

of  the  Cliurcli."  ^  Such  persons  "  are  brought  under  the  bond 
of  the  covenant.  This  should  be  early  laid  before  them,  to  let 
them  see  that  by  this  dedication  to  God,  they  are  bound  to  per- 
form all  duties  of  religion  for  which  they  have  capacity,  to  receive 
instruction  and  appear  for  religion  as  the  professors  thereof.  As 
soon  as  they  have  a  competency  of  knowledge,  and  are  capable 
of  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  they  are  bound  to  commemorate 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  renew  their  engagements  to  Him  at  his 
table,  unless  debarred  by  discipline  for  unchristian  conduct. 
When  they  shall  become  parents,  they  are  bound  to  dedicate 
their  children  to  God  in  baptism."  ^ 

Such  were  the  views  on  this  subject  entertained  by  some  of  the 
most  evangelical  ministers  of  our  Church  during  the  last  century 
and  long  afterwards.  The  same  views  prevailed,  to  some  extent, 
also  in  New  England. 

A  third  theory  on  which  the  baptism  of  children,  whose  par- 
ents are  not  communicants,  is  contended  for,  makes  a  distinction 
between  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  More  is  required  for 
the  latter  than  for  the  former  ;  and,  therefore,  adults  who  are 
entitled  to  baptism  for  themselves  and  for  their  children,  may 
not  be  entitled  to  admission  to  the  Lord's  table.  This  is  one  of 
the  views  on  this  general  subject  referred  to  by  Vitringa  and  De 
Moor  in  the  works  above  mentioned.  The  advocates  of  this 
theory  appeal  to  the  fact  that  the  Apostles,  who  were  no  more 
able  than  other  men  to  read  the  heart,  baptized  thousands  on  the 
spot,  on  a  simple  external  profession  of  faith.  So  Paul  baptized 
the  jailer  at  Philippi  and  his  family  "  straightway,"  that  is,  as 
would  appear,  at  midnight  in  the  prison.  Philip  baptized  the 
eunuch  of  Ethiopia  as  soon  as  he  confessed  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God,  although  he  knew  nothing,  so  far  as  appears  in  the  nar- 
rative, of  his  conduct  either  before  or  after.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  urged  that  these  same  Apostles  required  all  who  came  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  examine  themselves,  and  see  whether  they 
were  in  the  faith,  or  whether  Christ  dwelt  in  them.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Blair  in  the  earlier  part 
of  his  ministry  ;  for  he  says  in  his  preface  ^  to  his  Essays  : 
"  Many  of  my  friends  will,  probably,  be  surprised,  to  find  I  have 
changed  my  sentiments  with  respect  to  some  subjects  of  one  of 
the  sacraments ;  for  they  know  it  was  formerly  my  opinion,  that 
the  unregenerate  ought  not,  by  any  means,  to  adventure  to  the 
Lord's  table  ;  though  they  ought  to  dedicate  their  children  to 
God  in  baptism." 

1  Blair,  Essays,  ut  supra,  p.  28.  ^  lUd,  p.  43.  8  lUd.  p.  4. 


§11.]     BAPTISM.    WHOSE   CHILDREN   TO   BE    BAPTIZED?     oOT 

This  is  also  the  theory  which  was  known  in  New  England  as 
the  "  Half-Way  Covenant."  Many  were  recognized  as  entitled 
to  present  their  children  for  baptism,  avIio  were  not  prepared  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  controversy  on  this  subject 
began  in  Hartford,  Connecticut,  in  1654,  1655.  Several  councds 
were  called,  which  failed  to  produce  unanimity.  The  question 
was  referred  to  a  Synod  of  divines  to  meet  in  Boston.  The 
Synod  met  and  sat  two  or  three  weeks.  "  As  to  the  case  of  such 
baptized  persons  as,  without  being  prepared  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  were  of  blameless  character,  and  would  own  for  tliem- 
selves  their  baptismal  obligations,  it  decided  that  they  ought^  to 
be  allowed  to  present  their  children  for  baptism.  This  assuming 
of  baptismal  obUgations  was  called  by  opponents,  taking  the 
Half-way  Covenant."  ^ 

The  Synod  decided  in  favour  of  the  following  propositions  :  — 
"  1.  They  that,  according   to  Scripture,  are   members  of  the 
visible  Church,  are  the  subjects  of  baptism. 

"2.  The  members  of  the  visible  Church,  according  to  Scrip- 
ture, are  confederate  visible  believers,  in  particular  churches,  and 
their  infant  seed,  i.  e.,  children  in  minority,  whose  next  parents, 
one  or  both,  are  in  covenant. 

"  3.  The  infant  seed  of  confederate  visible  believers,  are  mem- 
bers of  the  same  Church  with  their  parents,  and  when  grown  up 
are  personally  under  the  watch,  discipline,  and  government  of 
that  church. 

"  4.  These  adult  persons  are  not,  therefore,  to  be  admitted  to 
full  communion,  merely  because  they  are,  and  continue  members, 
without  such  further  qualifications  as  the  Word  of  God  requireth 

thereunto. 

"  5.  Church-members  who  Avere  admitted  in  minority,  under- 
standing the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  publicly  professing  their  assent 
thereto,  not  scandalous  in  life,  and  solemnly  owning  the  covenant 
before  the  Church,  wherein  they  give  up  themselves  and  their 
children  to  the  Lord,  and  subject  themselves  to  the  government 
of  Christ  in  the  Church,  their  children  are  to  be  baptized. 

"  6.  Such  church-members,  who  either  by  death,  or  some  other 
extraordinary  providence,  have  been  inevitably  hindered  from  pub- 
licly acting  as  aforesaid,  yet  have  given  the  Church  cause,  in  judg- 
ment of  charity,  to  look  at  them  as  so  qualified,  and  such  iis,  had 

1  A  nistorn  of  Nev  Enqhmd,  from  the  Discovery  by  Europeans  to  the  Revolution  of  the 
Seventeenth  Century,  being  an  Abrich/ment  of  his  "History  of  New  England  durmg  the 
Stuart  Dynasty.''     By  John  Gorham  Palfrey.     New  York,  1866,  vol.  n.  p.  19. 


568       PART  III.   Ch.  XX. —the  means  of  grace. 

they  been  called  thereunto,  would  have  so  acted,  their  children 
are  to  be  baptized. 

"  7.  The  members  of  orthodox  churches,  being  sound  in  the 
faith  and  not  scandalous  in  life,  and  presenting  due  testimony 
thereof  ;  these  occasionally  coming  from  one  church  to  another 
may  have  their  children  baptized  in  the  church,  whither  they 
come,  by  virtue  of  communion  of  churches.  But  if  they  remove 
their  habitation  they  ought  orderly  to  covenant  and  subject  them- 
selves to  the  government  of  Christ  in  the  church  where  they  set- 
tle their  abode,  and  so  their  children  to  be  baptized.  It  being 
the  church's  duty  to  receive  such  into  communion,  so  far  as  they 
are  regvilarly  fit  for  the  same."  ^ 

These  propositions  are  founded  on  the  following  principles  :  - 

1.  That  as  under  the  old  economy  the  Temple  was  one,  it  had 
its  outer  and  inner  courts,  and  those  who  had  access  to  the  former 
were  not  thereby  entitled  to  enter  the  latter  ;  so  under  the  new 
dispensation  the  visible  Church  is  one,  but  it  includes  two  classes 
of  members  ;  baptized  professors  of  the  true  religion,  and  those 
who,  giving  evidence  of  regeneration,  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

2.  That  the  qualifications  for  baptism  and  for  full  communion 
are  not  identical.  Many  may  properly  be  admitted  to  the  former, 
who  are  not  prepared  for  the  latter. 

3.  That  baptism  being  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
all  who  are  baptized,  whether  adults  or  infants,  are  properly 
designated  "  focderati,"  members  of  the  visible  Church,  believers, 
saints.  Christians. 

4.  That  those  baptized  in  infancy  remain  members  of  the  visi- 
ble Church  until  they  are  "  discovenanted,"  as  the  Congrega- 
tionalists  express  it ;  or,  separated  from  it  by  a  regular  act  of 
discipline. 

5.  That  being  members  of  the  Church,  if  free  from  scandal 
and  continuing  their  profession,  they  are  entitled  to  present  their 
children  for  baptism. 

The  decision  of  this  Synod  did  not  put  an  end  to  the  contro- 
versy. It  was,  however,  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the 
majority  of  the  New  England  churches.  Its  chief  opponents 
were  found  among  "  the  more  conservative  class  of  laymen.  Its 
advocates  among  tlie  clergy  were  from  the  first  a  majority,  which 

1  MagnaVm  Christi  Americnnn,  by  Rev.  Cotton  ISIathcr,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  Hartford,  1853, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  276-31G.  The  passage  referred  to  contains  a  full  account  of  the  controversy- 
The  words  above  are  on  page  279. 


§11.]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE    CHILDREN   TO   BE   BAPTIZED?     569 

went  on  increasing  from  generation  to  generation  ;  and  tlie  Half- 
way Covenant,  as  it  was  opprobriously  called,  came  to  be  ap- 
proved by  the  general  practice  of  the  Congregational  churches 
of  New  England."  ^  Such,  also,  it  is  believed,  although  on  some- 
what different  principles,  was  the  general  practice  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  this  country  until  within  a  comparatively  recent 
period  of  its  history. 

The  Puritan  Doctrine  on  this  Subject. 

The  Puritans,  in  the  restricted  sense  of  that  word,  held,  (1.) 
That  the  Church  consists  of  the  regenerate.  (2.)  That  a  par- 
ticular church  consists  of  a  number  of  true  believers  united  to- 
gether by  mutual  covenant.  (3.)  That  no  one  should  be  admit- 
ted to  church-membership  who  did  not  give  credible  evidence  of 
being  a  true  child  of  God.  (4.)  They  understood  by  credible 
evidence,  not  such  as  may  be  believed,  but  such  as  constrains 
belief.  (5.)  All  such  persons,  and  no  others,  were  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  They,  therefore,  constituted  the  Church,  and 
to  them  exclusively  belonged  the  privileges  of  church-inember- 
ship,  and  consequently  to  them  was  confined  the  right  of  present- 
ing their  children  for  baptism.  All  other  professors  of  the  true 
religion,  however  correct  in  their  deportment,  were  denied  that 
privilege. 

These  principles,  when  introduced  by  the  Brownists  in  Eng- 
land, were  opposed  by  the  great  body  of  Protestants  in  Great 
Britain  and  upon  the  Continent.  They  were  brought  to  this 
country  by  the  disciples  of  Robinson,  and  controlled  the  New 
England  churches  for  many  years.  They  were  gradually  relaxed 
when  the  theory  above  stated  gained  the  ascendancy,  which  it 
retained  until  President  Edwards  published  his  "  Essay,"  to  which 
we  have  referred,  which  gradually  changed  the  opinions  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Congregational  churches  throughout  the  land,  and  to 
a  great  extent  those  of  Presbyterians  also. 

President  Edwards,  however,  lays  down  one  proposition,  and 
devotes  his  whole  treatise  to  proving  another.  The  proposition 
which  he  undertakes  to  establish  is,  that  none  "  ought  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  communion  and  privileges  of  members  of  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ  in  complete  standing,  but  such  as  are  in  profes- 
sion, and  in  the  eye  of  the  Church's  Christian  judgment,  godly 
or  gracious  persons."  ^  What  he  proposes  to  prove,  therefore,  is 
that  those  only  who,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  are  godly 

1  Palfrey,  p.  103.  2  Works,  edit.  New  York,  1868,  vol.  i.  p.  89. 


570         PART   III.     Cir.    XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

or  gracious  persons  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  sacraments.  AH 
liis  arguments,  however,  ten  in  number,  are  directed  to  prove  that 
those  wha  come  to  the  Christian  sacraments  profess  to  be  Chris- 
tians. Tliese  propositions  are  very  different.  Many  who  assent 
to  the  hitter,  reject  the  former.  The  one  has  reference  to  the 
qualifications  for  church-membership  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  the 
other  concerns  the  legitimate  power  of  the  Church  in  receiving 
or  rejecting  those  who  apply  for  access  to  the  ordinances  which 
Christ  has  appointed  as  means  of  grace  for  the  people.  Edwards 
had  far  higher  notions  of  Church  power  in  this  matter,  than 
those  entertained  by  the  great  body  of  Protestants.  The  reason 
why  President  Edwards  confounded  the  propositions  above  men- 
tioned, was,  that  those  against  whom  he  wrote  did  not  deny  the 
prerogative  of  the  Cliurch  to  sit  in  judgment  on  those  who  ap- 
plied for  Church  privileges ;  that,  with  them,  was  not  the  matter 
in  dispute.  The  question  concerned  the  divinely  appointed  qual- 
ifications for  membership  in  the  Christian  Church.  Did  Christ 
intend  and  ordain  that  those  only  whom  the  Church  judged  to 
be  truly  regenerated  should  be  admitted  ;  or  did  He  design  the 
sacraments,  as  Stoddard  contended,  for  the  unconverted  ;  they, 
as  well  as  preaching,  being  appointed  as  means  of  conversion. 
This  being,  then,  the  only  matter  of  debate,  to  it  Edwards  nat- 
urally confined  his  attention. 

Edwards  is  very  explicit  in  his  statement-  of  the  prerogative 
and  duty  of  the  Church  in  acting  as  a  judge  of  the  real  char- 
acter of  those  who  profess  to  be  Christians.  He  says :  "  By 
Christian  judgment  I  intend  something  further  than  a  kind  of 
mere  negative  charity,  implying  that  we  forbear  to  censure  and 
condemn  a  man,  because  we  do  not  know  but  that  he  may  be 
godly,  and  therefore  forbear  to  proceed  on  the  foot  of  such  a 
censure  or  judgment  in  our  treatment  of  him :  as  we  woald 
kindly  entertain  a  stranger,  not  knowing  but  in  so  doing  Ave 
entertain  an  angel  or  precious  saint  of  God.  But  I  mean  a  posi- 
tive judgment,  founded  on  some  positive  appearance,  or  visibility, 
some  outward  manifestations  that  ordinarily  render  the  thing 
probable.  There  is  a  difference  between  suspending  our  judg- 
ment, or  forbearing  to  condemn,  or  having  some  hope  that  possi- 
bly the  thing  may  be  so,  and  so  hoping  the  best  ;  and  a  positive 
judgment  in  favour  of  a  person."  ' 

Edwards  is'  careful  not  to  make  any  detail  of  religious  experi- 
ence the  ground  upon  which  the  Church  was  to  rest  its  judgment 

1   Works,  edit.  New  York,  18G8,  vol.  i.  pp.  91,  92. 


§11.]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE   CHILDREN   TO   BE   BAPTIZED?    571 

This  was  one  of  the  charges  brought  against  his  scheme  which 
he  earnest!}'  resists.  In  reply  to  this  objection^  he  quotes  the 
following  passage  from  his  work  on  "  Religious  Affections :  " 
"  In  order  to  persons'  making  a  proper  profession  of  Christianity, 
such  as  the  Scripture  directs  to,  and  such  as  the  followers  of 
Christ  should  require  in  order  to  the  acceptance  of  the  professors 
with  full  charity,  as  of  their  society,  it  is  not  necessary  they 
should  give  an  account  of  the  particular  steps  and  method,  by 
which  the  Holy  Spirit,  sensibly  to  them,  wrought  and  brought 
about  those  great  essential  things  of  Christianity  in  their  hearts. 
There  is  no  footstep  in  Scripture  of  any  such  way  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  primitive  ministers  and  Christians  requiring  any  such 
relation  in  order  to  their  receiving  and  treating  others  as  their 
Christian  brethren,  to  all  intents  and  purposes  ;  or  of  their  first 
examining  them  concerning  the  particular  method  and  order  of 
their  experiences.  They  required  of  them  a  profession  of  the 
things  wrought ;  but  no  account  of  the  manner  of  working  was 
required  of  them.  Nor  is  there  the  least  shadow  in  the  Scripture 
of  any  such  custom  in  the  Church  of  God,  from  Adam  to  the 
death  of  the  Apostle  John." 

According  to  this  theory,  therefore,  the  Church  consists  of 
those  who  are  "  judged  "  to  be  regenerate.  None  but  those  thus 
declared  to  be  true  believers  are  to  be  received  as  members  of  the 
Church.  They  alone  are  entitled  to  the  sacraments  either  for 
themselves  or  for  their  children,  and  consequently  only  the  chil- 
dren of  communicants  are  to  be  admitted  to  baptism.  It  may  be 
remarked  on  this  theory,  — 

1.  That  it  is  a  novelty.  It  had  never  been  adopted  or  acted 
upon  by  any  church  on  earth,  until  the  rise  of  the  Independents. 

2.  It  has  no  warrant  from  Scripture  either  by  precept  or  exam- 
ple. Under  the  old  economy  those  who  professed  the  true  relig- 
ion were  admitted  to  the  theocracy  ;  but  no  body  of  men  sat  in 
judgment  on  the  question  of  their  regeneration.  Those  thus 
admitted,  unless  excluded  judicially,  had  a  right  to  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church  for  themselves  and  for  their  children.  The 
Apostles  acted  upon  precisely  the  same  principle.  It  is  impossi- 
ble that  they  should  have  examined  and  decided  favourably  as  to 
the  regeneration  of  each  of  the  five  thousand  persons  added  to  the 
Church  in  one  day  in  Jerusalem.  The  whole  Church,  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  followed  the  example  of  the  Apostles  in 
this  matter. 

1  Mtsrejyresentations  Corrected  and  Truth  Vindicated,  in  a  RepJij  to  the  Rev.  Solomon 
Williams'  Book;   Worlcs,  edit.  X«'v  York,  18(i3,  vol.  i.  pp.  ?0G,  207. 


f>72         PART   III.     Cn.   XX.  — THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

3.  The  attempt  to  make  the  visible  Church  consist  exchisively  of 
true  believers  must  not  only  inevitably  fail  of  success,  but  it  must 
also  be  joroductive  of  evil.  Dr.  Cotton  Mather,  in  defending  the 
decision  of  the  Synod  of  Boston,  which  allowed  baptism  to  the 
children  of  non-communicants,  quotes  Parteus  as  saying,  "  In 
church  reformation,  'tis  an  observable  truth  that  those  that  are 
for  too  much  strictness,  do  more  hurt  than  profit  the  Church." 
And  he,  himself,  says,  "  Baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  whole  covenant 
of  grace  ;  but  it  is  by  way  of  initiation.  Hence  it  belongs  to 
all  that  are  within  the  covenant  or  have  the  first  entrance  there- 
into. And  is  there  no  danger  of  corruption  by  overstraining  the 
subject  of  baptism  ?  Certainly,  it  is  a  corruption  to  take  from 
the  rule,  as  Avell  as  add  to  it.  Moses  found  danger  m  not  apply- 
ing the  initiating  seal,  to  such  for  whom  it  was  appointed.  Is 
there  no  danger  of  putting  those  out  of  the  visible  Church,  whom 
our  Lord  would  have  kept  in?  ....  If  we  do  not  keep  in  the 
way  of  a  converting,  grace-giving  covenant,  and  keep  persons  un- 
der those  church  dispensations,  wherein  grace  is  given,  the  Church 
will  die  of  a  lingering,  though  not  Adolent,  death.  The  Lord 
hath  not  set  up  churches  only  that  a  few  old  Christians  may  keep 
one  another  warm  while  they  live,  and  then  carry  away  the 
Church  into  the  cold  grave  Avith  them  when  they  die ;  no,  but 
that  they  might  with  all  care,  and  with  all  the  obhgations  and 
advantiiges  to  that  care  that  may  be,  nurse  up  still  successively 
another  generation  of  subjects  to  our  Lord,  that  may  stand  up 
in  his  kingdom  when  they  are  gone."  ^ 

4.  Experience  proves  that  it  is  a  great  evil  to  make  the  Church 
consist  only  of  communicants  and  to  cast  out  into  the  world, 
without  any  of  that  watch  and  care  which  God  intendod  for 
them,  all  those  together  with  their  children,  who  do  not  see  their 
way  clear  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table.  Admitting  with  gi-atitude 
all  that  can  be  said  of  the  great  advance  made  by  the  Church  in 
this  country  within  the  last  fifty  or  sixty  years,  there  are  loud  and 
almost  universal  complaints  made  of  the  decay  of  family  religion, 
of  family  training,  and  especially  of  the  ecclesiastical  instruction 
of  the  young.  It  is  within  the  memory  of  many  now  living  that 
in  almost  every  Presbyterian  and  every  Congregationalist  family 
in  the  land,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  children  were  regularly 
taught  the  "  Westminster  Catechism."     It  is  not  so  now.'^ 

1  Mather's  Mngnnlia,  vol.  ii.  p.  309. 

2  The  venerable  Mr.  Spaiilding,  during  his  recent  visit  to  this  country,  after  spending 
ihirty-five  years  as  a  missionary  of  the  American  Board  in  Cej'lon,  was  so  much  struck 
irith  the  change  in  thi'se  respects  which  had  taken  place  during  his  abser.ce,  that  b  ;  said 


§11.]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE    CHILDREN   TO   BE  BAPTIZED?     573 

Doctrine  and   Usage  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

The  language  of  the  Reformed  Churches  as  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  mfant  baptism  is  perfectly  uniform.  In  the  "  Second 
Helvetic  Confession "  it  is  said,^  "  Damnamus  Anabaptistas, 
qui  negant  baptisandos  esse  infantulos  recens  natos  a  fidelibus. 
Nam  juxta  doctrinam  evangelicam,  liorum  est  regnum  Dei,  et 
sunt  in  foedere  Dei,  cur  itaque  non  daretur  eis  signum  foederis 
Dei?" 

The  "  Gallic  Confession "  says :  ^  "  Quamvis  baptismus  sit 
fidei  et  resipiscentiae  sacramentum,  tamen  cum  una  cum  parenti- 
bus  posteritatem  etiam  illorum  in  ecclesia  Deus  recenseat,  affirm- 
amus,  infantes  Sanctis  parentibus  natos,  esse  ex  Christi  authoritate 
baptizandos." 

The  "  Belgic  Confession  "  says  :  ^  "  (Infantes  e  fidelibus  parent- 
ibus natos)  baptizandos  et  signo  foederis  obsignandos  esse  credi- 

mus."  .  .  /  ^ 

The  "  Westminster  Confession  "  says  :*  "  Now  only  those  that  L 

do  actually  profess  faith  in,  and  obedience  mito  Christ,  but  also 
the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized." 

The  "  Larger  Catechism  "  says  :  ^  "  Infants  descending  from 
parents,  either  both  or  but  one  of  them,  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
and  obedience  to  Him,  are,  in  that  respect,  within  the  covenant, 
and  are  to  be  baptized." 

The  "  Shorter  Catechism  "  says  :  *^  "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  Church,  till  they 
profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  their  obedience  to  Him  ;  but  the 
children  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible  Church,  are  to  be 
baptized." 

The  "  Directory  for  Worship  "  says  : "'  "  The  seed  of  the  faith- 
ful have  no  less  right  to  this  ordinance,  under  the  Gospel,  than 
the  seed  of  Abraham  to  circumcision." 

It  is,  therefore,  phiin  that  according  to  the  standards  of  the 
Reformed  Church,  it  is  the  children  of  the  members  of  the  visi- 
ble Church  who  are  to  be  baptized.  Agreeably  to  Scriptural 
usage  such  members  are  called  "  foederati,"  saints,  believers, 
faitliful,  holy  bretlu-en,  partakers  of  the  heavenly  calling.  The 
Apostles  in  addressing  professing  Christians  in  the  use  of  such 

he  thought  the  time  would  come  when  the  Tamul  people  would  he  called  upon  to  send  niis- 
sionai'ies  to  America. 

1  Cap.  xx.;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  18-tO,  p.  518. 

2  Art.  XXXV.  Ibid.  p.  338.  3  Art.  xxxiv.  Ibid.  p.  .384.  4  Chap.  xxviii.  4. 
6  Quest.  166.                                     6  Quest.  95.  "'  Chap.  vii.  4. 


57  t  PART   III.     Cii.   XX. —THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

terms  did  not  express  any  judgment  of  their  state  in  the  sight 
of  God.  They  designated  them  according  to  their  profession. 
If  they  professed  to  be  believers,  they  were  called  believers,  and 
were  treated  as  such  ;  unless  they  gave  tangible  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  and  in  that  case  tliey  were  excommunicated.  ■  The  Re- 
formed, as  well  as  tlie  Lutheran  theologians,  therefore,  speak  of 
the  members  of  the  visible  Church  as  believers,  and  of  their 
children  as  born  of  believing  parents.  All  that  is  intended, 
therefore,  by  the  language  above  cited  is,  that  the  sacraments  of 
the  Church  are  to  be  confined  to  members  of  the  Church  and 
to  their  children.  It  never  entered  the  minds  of  the  authors  of 
those  symbols  that  the  visible  Church  consists  exclusively  of  the 
regenerate,  or  of  those  who  gave  such  evidence  of  their  regenera- 
tion as  to  constrain  a  judgment  in  their  favour. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  common  doctrine  of  Protes- 
tants on  this  whole  subject  is,  — 

1.  That  the  visible  Church  has  always  consisted  of  those  who 
professed  the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children. 

2.  That  the  terms  of  church-membership  under  all  dispensations 
have  been  the  same,  namely,  profession  of  faith  and  promise  of 
obedience. 

3.  The  requirements  for  participation  in  the  sacraments  were 
the  same.  That  is,  any  one  entitled  to  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
was  entitled  to  partake  of  the  passover ;  those,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  entitled  to  baptism,  are  entitled  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Those  who,  unbaptized,  would  be  entitled  to  baptism 
for  themselves,  are  entitled,  and  tlu^y  only,  to  present  their  chil- 
dren for  baptism.  This  is  only  saying  that  the  privileges  of  the 
Church  are  confined  to  members  of  the  Church. 

4.  The  profession  of  faith  required  for  admission  to  the  Church 
or  its  ordinances  is  a  profession  of  tVue  faith ;  and  the  promise 
of  obedience  is  a  promise  of  tlie  obedience  of  the  heart  as  well 
as  of  the  outward  life.  When  a,  man  professed  to  be  a  Jew 
he  professed  to  be  truly  a  Jew.  It  is  inconceivable  that  God 
required  of  him  only  an  insincere,  liypocritical,  or  formal  faitli. 
This  point  is  strenuously  urged  by  President  Edwards.  -He 
argues  that  those  who  enter  the  Christian  Ch.urch  enter  into 
covenant  with  God,  because  under  the  Mosaic  economy  all  the 
people  thus  pledged  themselves  to  be  the  sincere  worshippers  of 
God.  He  appeals  to  such  passages  as  Deuteronomy  vi.  18,  x.  20, 
"  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  Him  shalt  thou  serve,  and 
to  Him  shalt  thou  cleave,  and  swear  bv  his  name."     "  Tliis  ipsti- 


§11.]    bapt;sm.    whose  children  to  rw:  bapjized?   575 

tution,  in  Deuteronomy,  of  swearing  into  the  name  of  the  LoED, 
or  visibly  and  explicitly  uniting  themselves  to  Him  in  covenant, 
was  not  prescribed  as  an  extraordinary  duty,  or  a  duty  to  be  per- 
formed on  a  return  from  a  general  apostasy,  and  some  other  ex- 
traordinary occasions  :  but  is  evidently  mentioned  in  the  institu- 
tion as  a  part  of  the  public  worship  of  God  to  be  performed  by 
all  God's  people."  ^  This  was  an  institution,  he  adds,  belonging 
not  only  to  Israel  under  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  to  Gentile 
converts,  and  to  Christians  under  the  New  Testament.  This 
explicit  open  covenanting  with  God,  he  argues,-  ought  to  be  re- 
quired of  persons  before  they  are  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
adult  members  of  the  Church.  Circumcision  and  the  passover 
were  not  designed  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  Those 
only  were  admitted  to  these  ordinances  who  professed  to  be  con- 
verted. In  like  manner  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  not 
converting  ordinances.  They  are  to  be  administered  only  to  those 
who  profess  to  be  Christians.  It  is  plain,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  those  Avho  partake  of  the  Christian  sacraments  profess 
to  be  Christians.  This  is  not  so  much  asserted  as  assumed  as 
self-evident  by  the  Apostle,  when  he  dissuades  the  Corinthians 
from  frequenting  the  feasts  given  in  the  temples  of  idols.  As, 
he  says,  those  who  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  thereby  profess  to  be  in  communion  with  Christ ;  and  as 
those  who  partake  of  the  Jewish  altar,  thereby  profess  to  be  the 
worshippers  of  Jehovah  ;  so  those  who  partake  of  feasts  given 
in  honour  of  idols,  thereby  profess  to  be  idolators.  (1  Cor.  x. 
14-21.)  In  baptism  the  recipient  of  that  ordinance  publicly  de- 
clares that  he  takes  God  the  Father  to  be  his  father  ;  God  the 
Son  to  be  his  Saviom* ;  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  his  sancti- 
jBer.  More  than  this  no  Christian  can  profess.  That  this  pro- 
fession should  not  be  insincere  or  hypocritical,  or  merely  a  matter 
of  form,  need  not  be  argued.  When  a  parent  presents  his  child 
for  baptism,  he  makes  precisely  these  professions  and  engage- 
ments ;  and  he  can  do  no  more  when  he  comes  to  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

5.  The  prerogative  of  the  Church  is  limited  to  the  demand  of 
a  credible  profession  of  faith  and  promise  of  obedience.  And  by 
a  credible  profession  is  to  be  understood,  such  as  inay  be  believed ; 
that  is,  one  against  Avhich  no  decisive,  tangible  evidence  can  be 
adduced.  If  a  man  professes  faith  who  is  an  avowed  heretic,  or 
avows  a  purpose  of  obedience  while  leading  an  ungodly  life,  the 

I   Works,  edit.  New  York,  1868,  vol.  i.  pp.  106,  107.  2  Jbid.  p.  109. 


576  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means    OF    GRACE. 

Churcli  is  aiitliorized  and  bound  to  refuse  to  receive  liim.  Noth- 
ing, however,  can  consistently  be  made  a  ground  of  such  refusal, 
which  would  not  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  disci- 
pline of  one  already  in  the  communion  of  the  Church.  Two 
things  are  to  be  considered,  the  one  concerns  the  applicants  for 
Churcli  privileges.  They  are  bound  to  obey  the  command  of 
Christ  to  be  baptized  and  to  present  their  children  for  baptism  ; 
and  they  are  boiind  to  commemorate  his  death  in  the  way  of  his 
appointment.  They  assume  a  grave  responsibility  Avho  refuse  to 
allow  them  to  comply  with  those  commands.  It  is  moreover  not 
only  a  duty,  but  a  right,  a  privilege,  and  a  blessing  to  receive  the 
sacraments  of  the  Church.  They  are  divinely  appointed  means 
of  grace.  We  must  have  good  reasons  if  we  venture  to  refuse 
any  of  our  fellow  sinners  the  use  of  the  means  of  salvation  which 
Christ  has  appointed.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  many  have  come 
short  of  eternal  life,  who,  had  they  been  received  into  the  bosom 
of  the  Church  and  enjoyed  its  guardian  and  fostering  care,  might 
have  been  saved.  (This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
election,  as  that  doctrine  is  taught  in  Scripture.) 

Besides  the  duties  and  rights  of  the  people,  the  other  thing  to 
be  considered  in  this  matter,  is  the  proper  office  of  the  Church. 
The  Church  has  a  solemn  duty  to  perform.  That  duty  is  clearly 
laid  down  in  tlie  Word  of  God.  It  is  bound  to  refuse  to  recog- 
nize as  Christian  brethren  those  who  deny  the  faith,  and  those 
whose  manner  of  life  is  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  Christ.  The 
Bible  gives  a  list  of  offences  which  exclude  those  who  commit 
them  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  for  which  the  Church  is 
commanded  to  exclude  men  from  her  communion.  In  doing  this 
it  secures  all  the  purity  it  is  possible,  in  the  present  state  of  exist- 
ence, to  attain.  Beyond  this  the  Church  has  neither  the  right 
nor  the  power  to  go.  It  cannot  legitimately  assume  the  preroga- 
tive of  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  hearts  of  men.  It  has  no 
right  to  decide  the  question  whether  tliose  who  apply  for  the 
privileges  of  Christ's  house  are  regenerate  or  unregenerate.  The 
responsibility  as  to  their  inward  spiritual  state  rests  upon  those 
who  seek  to  become  members  of  the  Church.  They  should  be 
taught  what  it  is  they  profess  and  promise. 

That  the  Church  is  not  called  upon  to  pronounce  a  judgment 
as  to  the  real  piety  of  applicants  for  membership  is  plain,  — 

1.  Because  no  such  prerogative  was  assumed  under  the  Old 
Testament.  The  terms  of  membership  were  then  wliat  they  are 
now.     The  same  inward   sincerity  was  required  then  as   n  w 


§11]     BAPTISM.     WHOSE   CHILDREN   TO  BE   BAPTIZED  ?     577 

This  Edwards  insists  upon,  yet  he  does  not  venture  to  assert  that 
all  Jews  admitted  to  circumcision  and  the  passover,  were,  in  the 
judgment  of  charity,  truly  regenerate  persons. 

2.  The  New  Testament  contains  no  command  to  the  Church 
to  assume  the  prerogative  in  question.  There  is  the  command 
often  repeated  to  recognize  as  brethren  all  who  profess  their  faith 
in  Christ.  There  are  explicit  directions  given  as  to  those  who, 
although  calling  themselves  brethren,  are  to  be  rejected.  (1  Cor. 
V.  9,  10  ;  Rom.  xvi.  17  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  6  ;  Tit.  iii.  10  ;  Matt.  vii. 
15-17.)  But  there  is  no  command  to  exclude  those  whom  the 
Church  or  its  officers  do  not  in  their  hearts  believe  to  be  the  true 
children  of  God.  The  gates  of  the  kingdom  of  God  are  not  to 
be  opened  or  shut  at  the  discretion  of  weak,  fallible  men.  Every 
man  has  a  right  and  is  bound  to  enter  those  gates,  except  those 
whom  Christ  has  commanded  his  Church  to  reject. 

3.  The  Apostles,  it  is  plain,  never  acted  on  the  principle  in 
question.  This  is  clear,  as  remarked  above,  from  their  baptizing 
converts  immediately  after  the  profession  of  their  faith.  It  is 
obviously  impossible  that  there  should  have  been  any  protracted 
examination  of  the  religious  experience  of  the  three  thousand 
converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  of  the  five  thousand  brought 
in  by  the  sermon  of  Peter,  recorded  in  the  third  chapter  of  Acts. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament 
afford  abundant  evidence  that  the  early  churches  did  not  consist 
exclusively  of  those  whom  the  Apostles  "  judged  "  to  be  regen- 
erated persons.  The  Church  of  Jerusalem  was  filled  with  men 
who  were  so  "  zealous  of  the  law,"  that  Paul  feared  that  they 
would  not  receive  him  even  when  he  came  to  bring  alms  to  the 
people.  Paul  charges  the  churches  of  Galatia  with  having  turned 
aside  to  another  gospel.  He  reproves  the  Corinthians  with  the 
grossest  irregularities  ;  and  the  Epistles  of  John  are  no  less  ob- 
jurgatory. 

4.  Experience  proves  that  all  attempts  to  preserve  the  puritj?- 
of  the  Chin^ch  by  being  more  strict  than  the  Bible,  are  utterly 
futile.     The  tares  cannot  be  separated  from  the  wheat. 

5.  Such  attempts  are  not  only  futile,  they  are  seriously  inju- 
rious. They  contravene  the  plan  of  God.  They  exclude  from 
the  watch  and  care  of  the  Church  multitudes  Avhom  He  com- 
mands his  people  to  look  after  and  cherish.  In  confining  the 
visible  Church  to  communicants,  it  unchurches  the  great  majority 
even  of  the  seed  of  the  faithful. 

6.  There  is  an  obvious  inconsistency  in  having  one  rule  for 
VOL.  III.  37 


r>T8  PART    III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

admission  into  tlic  Church,  and  another  for  continued  member- 
ship. If  Christ  requires  us  to  reject  all  whom  in  the  judgment 
of  charity  we  are  not  constrained  to  beheve  to  be  regenerate, 
then  He  requires  us  to  excommunicate  all  those  of  whom  this 
belief  is  not  entertained.  But  no  Church  acts,  or  can  act  on 
tluit  principle.  No  man  once  admitted  to  Church  privileges  can 
be  debarred  from  them,  except  after  a  trial  and  conviction  on  the 
charge  of  some  "  scandal"  or  "  offence." 

The  sacraments  as  all  admit  are  to  be  confined  to  members  of 
the  Church.  J3ut  the  Church  does  not  consist  exclusively  of 
communicants.  It  includes  also  all  who  having  been  baptized 
have  not  forfeited  their  membership  by  scandalous  living,  or  by 
any  act  of  Church  discipline.  All  members  of  the  Church  are 
professors  of  religion.  They  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  are 
under  a  solemn  vow  to  obey  his  laws.  If  they  are  insincere  or 
heartless  in  this  profession,  the  guilt  is  their  own.  The  Church 
is,  and  can  be  responsible  only  for  their  external  conduct ;  so 
long  as  that  is  not  incompatible  with  the  Christian  character, 
and  so  long  as  the  faith  is  held  fast,  the  privileges  of  member- 
ship continue. 

This  seems  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  standards  of  our  own 
Church.  Those  standards  teach,  (1.)  That  the  sacraments  are 
signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  (2.)  That  consequently 
all  who  partake  of  them  do  thereby  profess  to  accept  of  that 
covenant  for  their  own  salvation  ;  they  profess  to  receive  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  He  is  offered  to  them  in  the  gospel.  (3.) 
That  altbough  a  man  may  doubt  of  his  being  in  Christ  he  may 
be  a  worthy  partaker  of  the  sacraments,  if  he  "  unfeignedly 
desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to  depart  from  iniquity."  ^ 
(4.)  That  the  Cluirch  has  no  authority  to  exclude  from  the 
sacraments  any  except  those  who,  although  they  may  profess 
faith,  are  ignorant  or  scandalous.  In  answer  to  the  question, 
"  May  an)'-  who  profess  the  faith,  and  desire  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  be  kept  from  it  ?  "  it  is  answered,  "  Sucli  as  are 
found  to  be  ignorant  or  scandalous,  notwithstanding  their  pro- 
fession of  the  faith,  and  desire  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
may  and  ought  to  be  kept  from  that  sacrament  by  the  power 
which  Christ  hath  left  in  his  Clnirch,  until  they  receive  instruc- 
tion, and  manifest  their  reformation."  This,  according  to  Pres- 
byterians, is  the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  Church,  iu  Me 
matter  of  shutting  tlie  doors  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

I  Larger  Catechism,  answer  to  the  172cl  Question. 


§  12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  579 

Those,  therefore,  who,  havmg  been  themselves  baptized,  and 
still  professing  their  faith  in  the  true  religion,  having  competent 
knowledge,  and  being  free  from  scandal,  should  not  only  be  per- 
mitted but  urged  and  enjoined  to  present  their  childi-en  for  bap- 
tism, that  they  may  belong  to  the  Church,  and  be  brought  up 
under  its  watcli  and  care.  To  be  unbaptized  is  a  grievous  injury 
and  reproach  ;  one  which  no  piireut  can  innocently  entail  upon 
his  children.  The  neglect  of  baptism,  which  imphes  a  want  of  I 
appreciation  of  the  ordinance,  is  one  of  the  crying  sins  of  this 
generation.  I 

§  12.  Efficacy  of  Baptism. 

Doctrine  of  the  Reformed   Churches. 

In  the  section  which  treats  of  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  in 
general,  it  was  shown  that  according  to  the  Reformed  Chnrch 
the  sacraments  (1.)  Are  ordinances  of  divine  appointment.  (2.) 
That  they  are  means  of  grace,  and  therefore  are  not  to  be  under- 
valued or  neglected.  (3.)  That  their  efficacy  does  not  depend 
upon  any  virtae  in  them  or  in  him  by  whom  they  are  adminis- 
tered, but  upon  the  attending  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  (4.) 
That  their  efficacy  is  not  tied  to  the  time  of  their  administra- 
tion ;  and  that  they  are  not  the  exclusive  channels  of  the  spir- 
itual benefits  which  they  signify,  so  that  such  benefits  can  be 
received  only  through  and  in  the  .use  of  the  sacraments.  We 
have  by  faith  alone,  and  by  the  free  gift  of  God,  all  that  the  sac- 
raments are  made  the  means  of  communicating.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  reading  and  hearing  the  Word  of  God  :  neither  is  to 
be  neglected,  because  either,  or  one  without  the  other,  may  be 
made  effectual.  The  sacraments  are  not  to  be  neglected  or 
undervalued,  because  men  can  be  saved  without  them.  (5.) 
That,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned,  true,  living  faith  in  those 
who  receive  the  sacraments  is  the  indispensable  condition  of 
their  saving  or  sanctifying  influence. 

All  these  positions  are  affirmed  to  be  true  of  baptism  as  well 
as  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Of  the  former  the  principal  Reformed 
symbols  use  such  language  as  the  following :  "  Obsignantur 
ha3C  omnia  baptismo.  Nam  intus  regeneramur,  purificamur,  et 
renovamur  a  Deo  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  :  foris  alitem  accijnmus 
obsignationem  maximorura  donorum,  in  aqua,  qua  etiam  maxima 
ill;i  beneficia  representantur,  et  veluti  oculis  nostris  conspicienda 
proponuntur."  ^ 

1  Conftsslo  Helvetica  jjostcrior,  xx  ;  Niemeyer,  Colkctlo  Confessiviium,  Leipzig,  1840. 
p.  517. 


580  TART   III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

"  Baptismus  nobis  testificandoe  nostra  adoptioni  datus,  quoniara 
in  eo  inseriinur  Cliristi  corpori,  ut  ejus  sanguine  abluti  simul 
etiam  ipsius  Spiritu  ad  vitse  sanctimoniam  renovemur."  ^ 

"  (Baptismi  significatio)  duas  partes  liabet.      Nam  ibi  remissio 

peccatorum,  deinde  spiritualis  renovatio  figuratur Annon 

aliud  aquffi  tribuis  nisi  ut  ablutionis  tantum  sit  figura  ?  Sic  fig- 
uram  esse  sentio  ut  simul  annexa  sit  Veritas.  Neque  enim  sua 
nobis  dona  pollicendo  nos,  Deus  frustratur.  Proinde  et  peccato- 
rum veniam  et  vitae  novitatem  offeri  nobis  in  baptismo  et  recipi 
a  nobis,  certum  est."  ^ 

"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  differ- 
ence, whereby  Christian  men  are  discerned  from  others  that  be 
not  clmstened ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth, 
whereby  as  by  an  instrument  they  who  receive  baptism  rightly 
are  grafted  into  the  Church.  The  promises  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  visibly  signed  and  sealed ;  faith  is  confirmed  and  grace  in- 
creased by  virtue  of  prayer  to  God."  ^ 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  says  :  "  Is  then  the  external  baptism 
of  water,  the  washing  away  of  sms  ?  It  is  not :  For  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  alone  cleanses  us  from  all  sin.  Why  then  does  the 
Holy  Spirit  call  baptism  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the 
washmg  away  of  sms  ?  God  speaks  thus  not  without  sufficient 
cause,  not  only  that  He  may  teach  us,  that  just  as  pollution  of 
the  body  is  purged  by  water,  so  our  sins  are  expiated  by  the 
blood  and  Spirit  of  Cluist ;  but  much  more  that  He  may  assure 
us  by  this  divine  symbol  and  pledge,  that  we  not  less  truly  are 
cleansed  from  our  sins  by  inward  washing,  than  that  we  are  puri- 
fied by  external  and  visible  water."  ^ 

The  Consensus  Tigurinus  is  the  most  carefully  prepared  and 
guarded  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  which 
has  come  doAvn  fi-om  the  age  of  the  Reformation.  It  was  drawn 
up  to  adjust  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  diverging  views  on 
this  subject  between  Calvin  and  the  clergy  of  Geneva  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Zwinghan  clergy  of  Zurich  on  the  other.  In  the 
ninth  article  it  is  said,  "  that  although  we  distinguish,  as  is 
proper,  between  the  sign  and  the  things  signified  ;  jet  we  do  not 
disjoin  the  truth  from  the  signs  :  moreover  all  who  embrace  by 
faith  the  promises  therein  offered,  spiritually  receive  Christ  to- 

1  Confessio  Gnllicnna,  Art.  xxxv. ;  Ibid.  p.  338. 

2  Catechismics  Genevensis  [v.],  Niemeyer,  pp.  1G2,  1G3. 

8  Thirty-nine  Articles,  xxvii.  *  Ques.  72  and  73,  Niemeyer,  pp.  445,  446. 


gl2.]  BAPTISM.    ITS  EFFICACY.  581 

gether  with  liis  spiritual  gifts  ;  and  so  those  who  before  had  been 
made  partakers  of  Christ,  continue  and  renew  that  participation." 
In  articles  immediately  following  it  is  taught  that  regard  is  to  be 
had,  not  to  the  naked  signs,  but  to  the  promises  annexed  to  them  ; 
that  the  signs  without  Christ  are  "  inanes  larvse  ; "  that  if  any- 
good  be  conferred  by  the  sacraments,  it  is  not  from  their  proper 
inherent  vii-tue  ;  for  it  is  God  alone  who  acts  through  his  Spirit. 
Article  sixteenth  is  in  these  words,  "  Pmeterea  sedulo  docemus, 
Deum  non  promiscue  vim  suam  exerere  in  omnibus  qui  sacra- 
menta  recipiunt,  sed  tantum  in  electis.  Nam  quemadmodum  non 
alios  in  fidem  illuminat,  quam  quos  preordinavit  ad  vitam  :  ita 
arcana  Spiritus  sui  virtute  efficit,  ut  percipiant  electi  quae  offerunt 
sacramenta."  Article  nineteenth  teaches  that  the  benefits  signi- 
fied by  the  sacraments  may  be  obtained  mthout  their  use.  Paul's 
sins  were  remitted  before  he  was  baptized.  Cornehus  received 
the  Spirit  before  he  received  the  external  sign  of  regeneration. 
In  the  twentieth  article  it  is  taught  that  the  benefit  of  the  sacra- 
ments is  not  confined  to  the  time  of  their  administration.  God 
sometimes  regenerates  in  their  old  age  those  who  were  baptized 
in  infancy  or  youth. ^ 

In  the  Westminster  Confession  it  is  said  :  "  Although  it  be  a 
great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance  [baptism],  yet 
grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it,  as 
that  no  person  can  be  regenerated  or  saved  without  it,  or  that 
all  that  are  baptized,  are  undoubtedly  regenerated.  The  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  ad- 
ministered ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordi- 
nance the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited 
and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or 
infants)  as  that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  counsel 
of  God's  own  will,  in  his  appointed  time."  ^ 

Calvin  controverts  the  Romish  doctrine  that  the  Sacraments  of 
the  New  Testament  have  greater  efiicacy  than  tliose  of  the  Old. 
"  Nihilo  splendidius  de  illis  Apostolus  quam  de  his  loquitur,  quum 
docet  patres  eandeni  nobiscum  spiritualem  escam  manducasse  ;  et 
escam  illam  Christum  interpretatur."  (1  Cor.  x.  3.)  And  again, 
in  the  same  paragraph,  "  Nee  vero  baptismo  nostro  plus  tribuere 
fas  est,  quam  ipse  alibi  circumcisioni  tribuit,  quum  vocat  '  sigillum 
justitite  fidei.'  (Rom.  iv.  11.)  Quicquid  ergo  nobis  hodie  in 
sacramentis  exhibetur,  id  in  suis  olim  recipiebant  .Judaii,  Christum 
BciUcet  cum  spiritualibus  suis  divitiis.     Quam  habent  nostra  vir- 

1  Niemeyer,  pp.  194,  195.  2  Chap,  xxviii.  §§  5,  6. 


■oS2          PART  III.     Ch.   XX. —the   means   OF    GRACE. 

tutem,  earn  quoque  in  suis  sentiebant :  ut  scilicet  essent  illis  diviiiae 
erga  se  benevolentia^  sigilla  in  speni  salutis  a^terniXi."  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church,  therefore,  on  the  efficacy 
of  baptism  inchides  in  the  first  place  the  rejection  or  denial  of 
certain  false  doctrines  on  the  subject.  (1.)  That  baptism  conveys 
grace  "  ex  opere  operato  "  in  the  sense  which  Romanists  attach  to 
those  Avords,  by  any  objective  supernatural  power  belonging  to 
the  ordinance  itself ;  or  in  virtue  of  the  divine  efficiency  inherent 
in  the  word  or  promise  of  God  connected  with  the  sacrament. 
(2.)  That  the  cooperation  of  the  Spirit,  to  which  the  efficacy  of 
the  ordinance  is  due,  always  attends  its  administration,  so  that 
those  who  are  baptized,  in  all  cases,  if  unresisting,  experience  the 
remission  of  sins  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (3.)  That 
baptism  was  appointed  to  be  the  ordinary  means  or  chamiel  of 
conveying,  in  the  first  instance,  the  merits  of  Christ's  death  and 
the  saving  influences  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  those  benefits  may  not, 
except  in  extraordinary  cases,  be  obtained  before  or  without  bap- 
tism. 

In  the  second  place  the  Reformed  doctrine  on  this  subject  af- 
firms, (1.)  That  baptism  is  a  divine  ordinance.  (2.)  That  it  is 
a  means  of  grace  to  believers.  (3.)  That  it  is  a  sign  and  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  (4.)  That  the  ordinance  was  intended  to 
be  of  perpetual  obligation,  in  the  sense  that  all,  not  baptized  in 
infancy,  are  required  to  submit  to  baptism  as  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed way  of  pubhcly  professing  their  faith  in  Christ  and  their 
allegiance  to  Him  as  their  God  and  Saviour;  and  that  all  such 
professors  of  the  true  religion  are  bound  to  present  their  children 
for  baptism  as  the  divinely  appointed  way  of  consecrating  them  to 
God.  (5.)  That  God,  on  his  part,  promises  to  grant  the  benefits 
signified  in  baptism  to  all  adults  who  receive  that  sacrament  in 
the  exercise  of  faith,  and  to  all  infants  who,  when  they  arrive  at 
maturity,  remain  faithful  to  the  vows  made  in  their  name  when 
they  were  baptized. 

Proof  of  the  Reformed  Doctrine. 

As  to  the  affirmations  included  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 
churches  concerning  baptism,  little  need  be  said,  as  they  are  gen- 
erally conceded.  In  all  ages,  since  the  apostolic,  the  tendeuey  in 
the  Church  has  been  not  to  detract  from  the  importance  of  the 
Christian  sacraments,  but  unduly  to  exalt  them.  Nothing  is 
plainer  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament  than  tha.t  the 

1  Instllutio,  IV.  xiv.  'I'-j,  edit.  Ucrliii,  ISoi,  part  ii.  p.  3G4. 


§  12]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  583 

sacraments  hold  a  place  much  below  that  of  the  truth.  Whereas 
in  all  churches  in  a  state  of  decay  the  reverse  is  the  fact.  The 
Jewish  ChureJi  in  the  time  of  Christ,  had  become  completely  rit- 
ualistic. Rites  and  ceremonies  had  usurped  the  place  of  truth 
and  holy  living.  A  man  might  be  proud,  avaricious,  unjust,  and 
as  our  Lord  expresses  it,  in  every  way  a  "  child  of  the  devil,"  yet 
if  punctilious  in  the  observance  of  church  rites  and  church  festi- 
vals, he  esteemed  himself  and  was  esteemed  by  others,  a  saint  so 
holy  as  to  be  contaminated  by  fellowship  or  contact  with  those 
who  Avere  the  true  children  of  God.  This  was  the  form  in  which 
corruption  entered  the  Christian  Church  soon  after  the  age  of 
the  Apostles.  This  "  mystery  of  iniquity  "  even  in  that  age  had 
begun  to  work,  and  when  he  that  "  did  let  "  was  taken  out  of 
the  way,  the  evil  was  fully  revealed,  and  the  Christian  Church 
became  as  thoroughly  ritualistic  as  the  Jewish  Church  had  been 
when  Christ  came.  The  Reformation  was  in  its  essential  charac- 
ter a  protest  against  ritualism.  It  proclaimed  salvation  by  a  liv- 
ing faith  which  purified  the  heart,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  bv  rites  and  ceremonies.  It  insisted  that  relio-ion  was 
a  matter  of  the  heart,  and  therefore  denounced  as  apostasy  the 
Church  returning  to  "  weak  and  beggarly  elements,"  to  observ- 
ing "  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years,"  subjecting  the 
people  to  "  ordinances,  touch  not  ;  taste  not ;  handle  not ;  which 
are  all  to  perish  with  the  using ;  after  the  commandments  and  doc- 
trines of  men."  Ritualism  is  a  broad,  smooth,  and  easy  road  to 
heaven,  and  is  always  crowded.  It  was  much  easier  in  Paul's 
time  to  be  a  Jew  outwardly  than  to  be  one  iuAvardly  ;  and  circum- 
cision of  the  flesh  was  a  slight  matter  when  compared  to  the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart.  A  theor}^  which  allows  a  man  to  be  re- 
ligious, without  being  holy  ;  to  serve  both  God  and  mammon  ;  to 
gain  heaven  without  renouncing  the  world,  will  never  fail  to  find 
numerous  supporters.  That  there  is  such  a  theory  ;  that  it  has 
prevailed  extensively  and  influentially  in  the  Church  ;  and  that 
it  is  prevalent  over  a  large  part  of  Christendom,  cannot  be  dis- 
puted. It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  all  who  are  called  ritual  - 
ists,  or  who  in  fact  attribute  undue  importance  to  external  rites, 
are  mere  formalists.  Many  of  them  are,  no  doubt,  not  only  sin- 
cere, but  spiritual  Christian  men.  This  is  no  proof  that  the 
system  is  not  false  and  evil.  All  Protestants  cheerfully  admit 
that  many  Romanists  are  holy  men  ;  but  they  no  less  strenuously 
denounce  Romanism  as  an  apostasy  from  the  pure  Gospel. 

As  the  corruption  of  the  Church  of  Rome  consisted  largely  '\n 


584  PART  III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MP:ANS   OF   GRACE. 

making  Christianity  to  consist  in  tlie  punctual  attendance  on 
church  rites  ;  in  teaching  that  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  conveyed  in  baptism  even  to  unbe- 
lievers (^.  e.,  to  those  destitute  of  saving  faith)  ;  that  when  those 
blessings  had  been  forfeited  by  sin,  they  could  be  restored  by 
confession  and  absolution ;  that  the  eucliarist  is  a  true  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  and  that,  in  short,  the  relig- 
ion of  Christ  is  purely  rituahstic,  its  benefits  being  conferred 
through  external  rites,  and  in  no  other  way,  so  that  those  rites 
were  indispensably  necessary  to  salvation ;  it  would  have  been 
natural  had  the  Reformers  gone  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  un- 
duly depreciated  the  importance  of  the  sacraments  which  Christ 
himself  had  appointed.  From  this  extreme,  however,  they  were 
mercifully'  preserved.     They  taught,  first,  that  in  one  sense,  — 

Baptism  is  a  Condition  of  Salvation. 

This  is  included  in  the  commission  which  Christ  s^ave  to  the 
Apostles,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  j)reach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 
(Matt.  xvi.  15,  16.)  Baptism,  therefore,  has  the  necessity  of 
precept,  not  that  of  a  means.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  that  he 
that  is  unbaptized  shall  be  damned.  That  denunciation  falls  only 
on  those  who  believe  not.  In  this  respect  baptisin  is  analogous 
to  confession.  Christ  attributes  the  same  necessity  to  the  latter 
as  to  the  former.  In  Matthew  x.  32,  it  is  written,  "  Whosoever 
shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
And  St.  Paul  says  (Rom.  x.  9,  10),  "  If  thou  shalt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that 
God  hath  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For 
with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  ;  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  Confession  does  not 
make  a  man  a  Christian.  It  is  the  public  avowal  that  he  is  a 
Christian  ;  that  he  is  a  believer  in  Christ,  in  his  divinity,  in  his 
incarnation,  and  in  his  being  and  doing  all  that  He  claimed  to  be, 
and  that  the  Scriptures  declare  He  did  for  us  and  our  salvation. 
Such  confession  is  a  duty,  a  privilege,  and  a  dictate  of  gratitude 
and  loyalty,  which  cannot  be  repressed.  His  people  will  glory  in 
confessing  Him.  While  there  is  this  desire  and  purpose  to  acknowl- 
edge Christ  before  men,  due  occasion  for  this  confession  may  not 
be  afforded,  or  it  may  be  hindered  by  self-diffidence  or  ignorance. 


12.J 


BAPTISM.     ITS  EFFICACr.    .  585 


As  our  Lord  intended  not  only  to  save  men  by  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  thus  to  bring  them  into  membership  in  his 
mystical  body,  but  also  to  constitute  a  visible  church  to  consist  of 
all  those  who  confessed  Him  to  be  their  God  and  Saviour,  He  ap- 
pointed an  outward  visible  sign  by  which  they  should  be  known 
and  enrolled  among  his  people.  This  was  in  accordance  with  the 
example  set  in  the  Old  Testament.  When  God  determined  to 
or^ranize  Abraham  and  his  descendants  into  a  visible  church,  to 
be  the  depository  of  the  truth  and  the  treasure-house  of  his  gifts, 
he  appointed  circumcision  to  be  the  sign  of  the  covenant  and 
the  badge  of  membership  in  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  This 
also  is  according  to  the  common  usage  in  human  society.  When  a 
foreigner  wishes  to  become  a  citizen  of  another  state,  he  is  called 
upon  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  his  adopted  country.  When 
a  man  is  elected  or  appointed  to  an  important  office,  he  must  be 
duly  inaugurated,  and  take  the  oath  of  fidelity.  The  oath  taken 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  does  not  make  him  Presi- 
dent ;  it  neither  confers  the  right  to  the  office,  nor  does  it  confer 
the  qualifications  for  the  proper  discharge  of  its  duties.  Circum- 
cision did  not  make  a  man  a  Jew.  It  gave  him  neither  the  knowl- 
edge nor  the  grace  necessary  to  his  being  one  of  the  true  children 
of  Israel.  It  was  the  appointed  means  of  avowing  that  he  was  a 
Jew  ;  it  was  the  sign  of  his  being  included  among  the  worship- 
pers of  the  true  God ;  and  it  secured  for  him  the  privileges  of  the 
theocracy.  In  like  manner,  baptism  does  not  make  a  man  a 
Christian.  It  is  the  appointed  means  of  avowing  that  he  is  a 
Christian  ;  it  is  the  badge  of  his  Christian  profession  before  men, 
it  secures  for  him  the  privileges  of  membership  in  the  visible 
Church,  and  it  is  a  pledge  on  the  part  of  God  that,  if  sincere  and 
faithful,  he  shall  partake  of  all  the  benefits  of  the  redemption 
of  Christ.  It  is  only  in  this  sense  that  the  Reformed  Church 
teaches  the  necessity  of  baptism.  It  has  the  necessity  of  a 
divine  precept.  It  is  the  condition  of  salvation,  in  the  same 
sense  in  Avliich  confession  is,  and  in  which  circumcision  was.  The 
uncircumcised  child  was  cut  off  from  among  the  people.  He 
forfeited  his  birthright.  But  he  did  not  forfeit  his  salvation. 
The  Apostle  teaches  us  that  if  an  uncircumcised  man  kept  the 
law,  his  uncircumcision  was  counted  for  circumcision.  To  this 
the  Jews  objected  by  asking.  What  profit  then  is  there  in  circum- 
cision ?  Paul  answered,  Much  every  way.  It  is  not  useless,  be- 
cause not  essential.  The  same  is  true  of  baptism.  Although  not 
the  means  of  salvation  or  necessary  to  its  attainment,  its  benefits 
are  great  and  manifold. 


586  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means   OF   GRACE. 

Baptism  as  a  Duty. 

The  Reformed  Church  teaches  that  baptism  is  a  duty.    If  a  man 

wishes  to  be  and  to  be  regarded  as  a  disciple  of  Christ,  he  is  bound 

to  be  baptized.    If  he  wishes  to  consecrate  his  children  to  God,  he 

is  bound  to  do  it  in  the  way  of  his  appointment.    This  is  plain,  — 

1.  From  the  command  of  Christ.  If  He  directed  the  Apostles 
to  make  disciples  by  baptizing  them.  He  thereby  commanded 
those  who  claimed  to  be  disciples  to  submit  to  baptism.  After 
such  a  command,  the  refusal  to  be  baptized,  unless  that  refusal 
arises  from   mistake  of  the  nature  of  the  command  or  throuo-h 

o 
ignorance,  is  tantamount  to  refusing  to  be  a  disciple  at  all. 

2.  This  is  further  plain  from  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles. 
Under  the  first  sermon  preached  by  the  Apostle  Peter  after  the 
effusion  of  the  Spirit,  multitudes  were  "  pricked  in  their  heart," 
and  Peter  "  said  unto  them.  Repent  and  be  baptized."  "  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  the  Word  were  baptized."  When  Philip 
preached  the  Word  in  Samaria,  those  who  believed  were  bap- 
tized, both  men  and  women ;  and  when  he  was  sent  to  join  the 
"  man  of  Ethiopia,"  and  "  preached  unto  him,"  in  that  short  dis- 
course, probably  less  than  an  hour  long,  he  must  have  insisted  on 
the  duty  of  baptism,  for  the  man  said,  "Here  is  water;  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized."  It  is  not  probable  that  a  minis- 
ter of  our  day  in  his  first  brief  discourse  Avith  an  inquirer  would 
urge  upon  him  the  duty  of  being  baptized.  As  soon  as  Cornelius 
received  the  Spirit,  Peter  ordered  water  to  be  brought  that  he 
might  be  baptized.  When  Ananias  came  to  Paul  who  was  blind 
from  his  vision  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  he  at  once  baptized  him. 
And  Paul  himself,  as  soon  as  the  jailer  in  Philippi  professed  his 
faith,  baptized  him  and  his  straightway.  It  is  obvious,  therefore, 
that  the  Apostles  regarded  baptism  as  an  imperative  duty  bind- 
ing on  all  those  who  professed  to  be  the  disciples  of  Christ. 

3.  This  is  still  further  plain  from  the  uniform  practice  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  All 
(Christians  have  felt  themselves  bound  by  the  authority  of  Christ 
to  confess  Him  before  men  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  It  is_ in- 
credible that  they  should  be  mistaken  in  such  a  matter  as  this ; 
that  they  should  regard  an  external  rite  as  universally  obliga- 
tory, if  it  had  not  in  fact  been  enjoined  by  their  divine  Master. 
Those,  therefore,  who  look  upon  baptism  as  an  unimportant  cere- 
mony which  may  be  neglected  with  impunity,  are  acting  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  convictions  of  the  Apostles  as  manifested  by  theii 


§12]  BAPTISM.    ITS  EFFICACY.  58T 

conduct,  and  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal.  It  is  not  good 
for  a  man  to  have  the  people  of  God  of  all  ages  against  him. 

4.  The  duty  of  baptism  may  be  argued  from  its  manifold  ad- 
vantages. In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  great  honour  and  distinction. 
If  among  men  it  is  a  coveted  distinction  to  wear  the  badge  of  the 
Legion  of  Honour,  it  is  a  far  more  desirable  distinction  to  wear 
the  badge  of  disciples  of  Christ,  to  be  enrolled  among  his  pro- 
fessed followers,  and  to  be  marked  as  belonging  to  Him  and  not 
to  the  world.  In  the  second  place,  those  who  are  baptized,  un- 
less they  renounce  their  privilege,  are  members  of  the  visible 
Church.  The  visible  Church  is  an  institution  of  God  ;  it  is  his 
treasure-house.  The  Church  under  the  new  dispensation  has 
great  advantage  over  tlie  ancient  theocracy,  and  yet  the  Apostle 
speaks  in  glowing  terms  of  the  privileges  of  the  Jews.  "  Who 
are  Israelites  ;  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory, 
and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of 
God,  and  the  promises."  (Rom.  ix.  4.)  Notwithstanding,  when 
in  2  Corinthians  iii.  6-11,  he  compares  the  two  dispensations,  he 
says,  "  If  the  ministration  of  death,  written  and  engraven  in 
stones,  was  glorious,  ....  how  shall  not  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit  be  rather  glorious  ?  .  .  .  .  For  even  that  which  was  made 
glorious  had  no  glory  in  this  respect,  by  reason  of  the  glory  that 
excelleth."  This  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Economies 
is  presented  in  still  stronger  terms  throughout  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  and  in  that  to  the  Hebrews.  In  Galatians  he  makes 
Hagar  the  slave  the  symbol  of  the  one,  and  Sarah  the  free  woman 
the  symbol  of  the  other.  And  in  Hebrews  the  Mosaic  economy, 
with  its  temples,  sacrifices,  priesthood,  and  ritual,  is  declared  to 
be  the  unsubstantial  shadow,  of  which  the  gospel  dispensation  is 
the  substance.  If,  then,  it  was  such  a  distinction  to  belong  to  the 
old  theocracy,  what,  in  the  view  of  Paul,  must  be  the  honour  and 
blessedness  of  membership  in  the  Christian  Church. 

Membership  in  the  visible  Church  is  not  only  a  great  honour, 
it  is  a  great  advantage.  To  the  Church  are  committed  the  ora- 
cles of  God.  It  is  the  depository  of  that  truth  which  is  able  to 
make  men  ^^  ise  unto  salvation.  It  is  the  divinely  appointed  in- 
strumentality for  preserving  and  communicating  that  truth.  Every 
one  admits  that  it  is  a  blessing  to  be  born  in  a  Christian,  instead 
of  in  a  heathen  land.  It  is  no  less  obviously  true  that  it  is  a  bless- 
ing to  be  within  the  pale  of  the  Church  and  not  cast  out  into  the 
world.  It  is  good  to  have  the  vows  of  God  upon  us.  It  is  good 
to  be  under  the  watch  and  care  of  the  people  of  God,     It  is  good 


688  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

to  have  a  special  claim  upon  their  prayers  and  upon  their  efforts 
to  bring  us  into,  or  keep  us  in  the  paths  of  salvation.  And  above 
all,  it  is  fjood  to  be  of  the  number  of  those  to  whom  God  has  made 
a  special  promise  of  grace  and  salvation.  For  the  promise  is  unto 
us  and  to  our  children.  It  is  a  great  evil  to  be  "  aliens  from  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of 
promise."  They,  therefore,  sin  against  God  and  their  own  souls 
who  neglect  the  command  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ; 
and  those  parents  sin  grievously  against  the  souls  of  their  chil- 
dren who  neglect  to  consecrate  them  to  God  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Do  let  the  little  ones  have  their  names  ^vi'itten  in  the 
Lamb's  book  of  life,  even  if  they  afterwards  choose  to  erase  them. 
Being  thus  enrolled  may  be  the  means  of  their  salvation. 

Baptism  as  a  Means  of  G-race. 

The  Reformed  Church  teaches  that  baptism  is  a  means  of  grace. 
1.  It  is  a  sign.  It  signifies  the  great  truths  that  the  soul  is 
cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  sin  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  purified  from  its  pollution  by  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  Bible  teaches  that  God  sanctifies  and  saves 
men  through  the  truth ;  that  the  Spirit  works  with  and  by  the 
truth  in  conveying  to  men  the  benefits  of  redemption.  It  matters 
not  whether  that  truth  be  brought  before  the  mind  by  hearing  or 
reading  it,  or  in  the  use  of  significant  divinely  appointed  emblems. 
The  fact  and  the  method  of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael from  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  were  as  clearly  taught  in  the 
sacrament  of  the  Passover,  as  in  the  written  words  of  Moses.  So 
the  fundamental  truths  just  mentioned  are  as  clearly  and  impres- 
sively taught  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  as  in  the  discourses  of 
our  blessed  Lord  himself.  It  is,  therefore,  just  as  intelligible  how 
the  Spirit  makes  the  truth  signified  in  baptism  the  means  of  sanc- 
tification,  as  how  he  malces  that  same  truth,  as  read  or  heard,  an 
effectual  means  of  salvation.  The  Spirit  does  not  always  cooper- 
ate with  the  truth  as  heard,  to  make  it  a  means  of  grace  ;  neither 
does  He  always  attend  the  administration  of  baptism,  with  his 
sanctifying  and  saving  power. 

2.  Baptism  is  a  seal  or  pledge.  When  God  promised  to  Noah 
that  He  would  never  again  drown  the  world  in  a  deluge.  He  set 
the  rainbow  in  the  heavens  as  a  pledge  of  the  promise  which  He 
had  made.  When  he  promised  to  Abraham  to  be  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him.  He  appointed  circumcision  as  the  seal 
and  pledge  of  that  promise.     So  when  He  promised  to  save  men 


§  12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  589 

by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
he  appointed  baptism  to  be,  not  only  the  sign,  but  also  the  seal 
and  pledge  of  those  exceeding  great  and  precious  j  romises.  No 
believer  in  the  Bible  can  look  on  the  rainbow  without  liavino;  his 
faith  strengthened  in  the  promise  that  a  deluge  shall  never  again 
destroy  the  earth.  No  pions  Jew  could  witness  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision administered,  or  advert  to  that  sign  in  his  own  person, 
without  an  increased  confidence  that  Jehovah  was  his  God.  And 
no  Christian  can  recall  his  own  baptism,  or  witness  the  baptism 
of  others,  without  having  his  faith  strengthened  in  the  great 
promises  of  redemption.  Every  time  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is 
administered  in  our  presence,  we  hear  anew  the  voice  from  heaven 
proclaiming,  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  liis  Son  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin  ;  "  "  He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

3.  Baptism,  however,  is  not  only  a  sign  and  seal ;  it  is  also  a 
means  of  grace,  because  in  it  the  blessings  which  it  signifies  are 
conveyed,  and  the  promises  of  which  it  is  the  seal,  are  assured  or 
fulfilled  to  those  who  are  baptized,  provided  they  believe.  The 
Word  of  God  is  declared  to  be  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  to 
salvation ;  it  is  the  means  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conferring 
on  men  the  benefits  of  redemption.  Of  course  all  who  merely 
hear  or  read  the  Word  of  God  are  not  saved  ;  neither  do  all  who 
receive  the  baptism  of  water  experience  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Word's  being  the 
means  of  salvation,  or  with  baptism's  being  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration. Our  Lord  says  we  are  sanctified  by  the  truth.  Paul 
says  we  put  on  Christ  in  baptism  (Gal.  iii.  27).  When  a  man 
receives  the  Gospel  with  a  true  faith,  he  receives  the  blessings 
which  the  Gospel  promises  ;  when  he  receives  baptism  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  faith,  he  receives  the  benefits  of  which  baptism  is  the 
sign  and  seal.  Unless  the  recipient  of  this  sacrament  be  insin- 
cere, baptism  is  an  act  of  faith,  it  is  an  act  in  which  and  by 
which  he  receives  and  appropriates  the  offered  benefits  of  the 
redemption  of  Christ.  And,  therefore,  to  baptism  may  be  prop- 
erly attributed  all  that  in  the  Scriptures  is  attributed  to  faith. 
Baptism  washes  away  sin  (Acts  xxii.  16)  ;  it  unites  to  (Christ 
and  makes  us  the  sons  of  God  (Gal.  iii.  26,  27)  ;  we  are  therein 
buried  with  Christ  (Rom,  vi.  B)  ;  it  is  (according  to  one  inter- 
pretation of  Titus  iii.  5)  the  washing  of  regeneration.  But  all  this 
is  said  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  what  it  purports  to  be,  an  act 
of  faith.    The  gospel  of  our  salvation  is,  to  those  who  believe  not,  a 


590  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

savour  of  death  unto  death.  Circumcision  to  the  unbelieving  Jew, 
was  uncircumcision.  Baptism,  without  faith,  is  without  effect. 
Such  being  the  case,  it  is  pUiin  that  baptism  is  as  truly  a  means  of 
grace  as  the  Word.  It  conveys  truth  to  the  mind ;  it  confirms  the 
promise  of  God ;  and  it  is  the  means  in  the  hands  of  the  Spirit  of 
conveying  to  believers  the  benefits  of  redemption.  Hence  it  is  a 
grievous  mistake  and  a  great  sin  to  neglect  or  undervalue  it. 

All  this  is  plam  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned.  But  if  the  sav- 
ing benefits  of  baptism  are  suspended  on  the  condition  of  faith  in 
the  recipient,  what  benefit  can  there  be  in  the  baptism  of  infants  ? 
To  this  it  may  be  answered,  — 

1.  That  it  is  the  commandment  of  God.  This  should  be  enous^h. 
It  might  as  well  be  asked  what  benefit  could  there  be  in  the  cir- 
cumcision of  infants  mider  the  law.  Paul  tells  us  that  the  benefit 
to  them  as  well  as  to  others  was  much  every  way.  It '  secured 
their  membership  in  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  which  was  a 
greater  honour  and  privilege  than  the  highest  peerage  on  earth. 
So  baptism  secures  the  membership  of  infants  in  the  visible 
Church  of  God,  which  is  a  still  greater  distinction  and  blessing. 

2.  Infants  are  the  objects  of  CIn-ist's  redemption.  They  are 
capable  of  receiving  all  its  benefits.  Those  benefits  are  promised 
to  them  on  the  same  conditions  on  which  they  are  promised  to 
their  parents.  It  is  not  every  one  who  says  Lord,  Lord,  who 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  not  every  baptized 
adult  who  is  saved ;  nor  are  all  those  who  are  baptized  in  infancy 
made  partakers  of  salvation.  But  baptism  signs,  seals,  and  actu- 
ally conveys  its  benefits  to  all  its  subjects,  whether  infants  or 
adults,  who  keep  the  covenant  of  wliich  it  is  the  sign.  As  a  be- 
Uever  who  recalls  some  promise  of  the  Scriptures  which  he  has 
read  or  heard,  receives  the  full  benefit  of  that  promise  ;  so  the  in- 
fant when  arrived  at  maturity  receives  the  full  benefit  of  baptism, 
if  he  believes  in  the  promises  signified  and  sealed  to  him  in  that 
ordinance.  Baptism,  therefore,  benefits  infants  just  as  it  does 
adults,  and  on  the  same  condition. 

It  does  not  follow  from  this  that  the  benefits  of  redemption  may 
not  be  conferred  on  infants  at  the  time  of  their  baptism.  That  is 
in  the  hands  of  God.  What  is  to  hinder  the  imputation  to  them 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  their  receiving  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  their  whole  nature  may  be  developed  in 
a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God  ?  Doubtless  this  often  occurs; 
but  wliether  it  does  or  not,  their  baptism  stands  good  ;  it  assurea 
them  of  salvation  if  the}^  do  not  renounce  their  baptismal  cove- 
nant. 


§  12.1  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  591 

Baptismal  Regeneration. 

Different  meanings  are  attached  to  the  words  baptismal  regen- 
eration. It  has  been  ah-eady  stated,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  that 
by  regeneration  is  sometimes  meant  an  external  change,  —  transla- 
tion from  the  world,  as  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  into  the  Church, 
as  the  Ivingdom  of  hght.  In  this  sense  it  implies  no  subjective 
change.  Sometimes  it  means  the  life-long  process  by  which  a  soul 
is  more  and  more  transformed  into  the  image  of  God.  Sometimes 
it  means  the  whole  process  which  takes  place  in  the  consciousness 
when  a  sinner  turns  from  sin  through  Christ  unto  God.  It  is 
then  synonymous  with  conversion.  In  our  day,  in  ordinary  the- 
ological language,  it  means  that  supernatural  change  effected  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  by  which  a  soul  is  made  spiritually  alive.  "  You 
hath  He  quickened  (e^woTrotrjo-e),"  (see  Eph.  ii.  1,  5),  says  the 
Apostle  to  the  Ephesians.  In  their  former  state  they  were  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins.  Their  regeneration  consisted  m  their  be- 
ing made  spiritually  alive  ;  or,  in  their  having  the  principle  of  a 
new  spiritual  life  imparted  to  them.  Such  being  the  diversity  of 
meaning  attached  to  the  word  in  question,  the  phrase  baptismal 
regeneration  may  be  understood  in  very  different  senses.  The 
sense  in  which  it  is  to  be  here  taken  is  that  in  which,  as  is  be- 
lieved, it  is  generally  understood.  According  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church  universal,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant,  all  men  since  the 
fall  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation  —  spiritually  dead. 
It  is  a  wide-spread  belief  that  when  baptism  is  administered  to 
new-born  infants,  they  are  regenerated  inwardly  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  they  are  so  born  again  as  to  become  the  children  of  God 
and  heirs  of  his  kingdom.  The  Avord,  however,  includes  more 
than  simply  the  renewing  of  the  soul.  Prior  to  baptism,  accord- 
ing to  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  England,  infants  are  in  a 
state  of  sin  and  the  children  of  wrath ;  by  baptism  they  are  said 
to  b(;  made  members  of  Christ,  children  of  God,  and  inheritors  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Li  other  words,  in  baptism  the  blessings 
signified  in  that  ordinance  are  conveyed  to  the  soul  of  the  infant. 
Those  blessings  are  the  cleansing  from  guilt  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  purification  from  pollution  by  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  in  this  sense  of  the 
term,  has  been  very  extensively  held  in  the  Church.  The  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  relied  upon  for  its  support,  are  principally  the 
following  :   John  iii.  5,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 


i>V2         VMVV   HI.     Ch.   XX— the  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

tlie  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Our  Lord 
is  understood  in  tliese  words  to  teach  the  necessity  of  baptism  to 
salvation.  I  kit  none  of  the  fallen  family  of  man  can  be  saved 
without  "the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit ;  "  if  baptism  saves  the  soul,  it  must  be  by 
communicating  to  it  those  blessings ;  or,  in  other  words,  those 
blessings  must  attend  its  administration.  The  principal  support 
of  this  interpretation  is  tradition.  It  has  been  handed  down  from 
age  to  age  in  the  Church,  until  its  authority  seems  firmly  estab- 
lished.    It  may  be  remarked  in  reference  to  this  passage,  — 

1.  Th;i,t  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  words  "  born  of  water  "  are  to 
be  understood  of  baptism,  the  passage  does  not  prove  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  It  asserts  the  necessity  of  baptism  to 
admission  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  just  as  our  Lord  insists  on  the 
necessity  of  the  public  confession  of  his  name.  Confession  is  not 
a  means  of  salvation.  It  does  not  convey  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
redemption.  It  is  a  duty  which  Christ  imposes  on  all  who  desire 
to  be  confessed  by  Ilim  in  the  last  day.  The  Reformed  acknowl- 
edge that  baptism  has  this  necessity  of  precept. 

2.  The  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God  "  sometimes  means  heaven, 
the  future  state  of  blessedness  ;  sometimes  the  external  or  visible 
Church,  as  consisting  of  those  who  profess  to  acknowledge  Christ 
as  their  king ;  and  sometimes  the  invisible  Church,  consisting  of 
those  in  and  over  whom  Christ  actually  reigns.  At  other  times 
the  phrase  is  used  comprehensively  as  including,  without  discrimi- 
nating, these  several  ideas.  In  this  last  sense  the  conditions  of  ad- 
mission into  the  kingdom  of  God  are  the  conditions  of  discipleship, 
and  the  conditions  of  discipleship  are  baptism  and  inward  regen- 
eration ;  precisely  as  under  the  old  dispensation,  for  a  man  to  be- 
come truly  a  Jew  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  circumcised 
and  believe  the  true  religion  as  then  revealed.  But  this  does  not 
imply  that  circumcision  of  the  flesh  was  circumcision  of  the  heart ; 
or  that  the  latter  uniformly  attended  the  former.  Neither  does 
our  Lord's  language  in  John  iii.  5,  even,  if  understood  of  baptism, 
imply  that  the  inward  grace  uniformly  attends  the  outward  or- 
dinance. John  the  r)aptist  (Matt.  iii.  11,  12)  made  a  marked 
distinction,  not  only  between  his  baptism  and  Christian  baptism, 
but  between  baptism  with  water  and  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
He  could  administer  the  former,  Christ  only  could  impart  the 
latter.  The  two  were  not  necessarily  comiected.  A  man  might 
receive  the  one  and  not  the  other.  Thousands  did  then,  and  do 
now,  re^celve  baptism  with  water  who  did  not,  and  do  not,  expe- 
rience the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


§  12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  593 

3.  xnere  is  no  necessity  for  assuming  that  there  is  any  refer- 
ence in  John  iii.  5,  to  external  baptism.  The  passage  maybe  ex- 
plamecl  after  the  analogy  suggested  by  Avhat  is  said  in  Matthew 
iii.  11.  There  it  is  said  that  Christ  would  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire.  No  one  understands  this  of  literal  fire. 
Fire  Avas  one  of  the  familiar  Scriptural  emblems  of  purification. 
(Is.  iv.  4 ;  Jer.  v.  14  ;  Mai.  iii.  2  ;  Acts  ii.  3.)  To  baptize  with 
fire,  was  to  effect  a  real,  and  not  merely  an  outward  purification. 
According  to  this  analogy,  to  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
is  to  experience  a  cleansing  of  the  soul  analogous  to  that  effected 
for  the  body  by  water.  This  is  the  interpretation  generally 
adopted  by  the  Reformed  theologians.  It  is  in  accordance,  not 
only  with  the  passage  in  Matthew  iii.  11,  but  with  the  general 
usage  of  Scripture.  In  that  usage  the  sign  and  the  thing  signi- 
fied are  often  united,  often  interchanged,  the  one  being  used  for 
the  other.  Water,  essential  to  the  existence  of  all  living  crea- 
tures on  the  face  of  the  earth,  not  only  the  means  of  cleansing  and 
refreshment,  but  also  one  of  the  elements  of  life,  is  familiarly  used 
for  the  divine  blessing,  and  especiall}^  for  the  saving,  sanctifying, 
refreshing,  and  sustaining  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  in 
the  gracious  invitation  of  the  prophet,  "  Ho,  every  one  that  tliirst- 
eth,  come  ye  to  the  waters."  (Is.  Iv.  1.)  Before  in  chapter  xii. 
3,  he  had  said,  "  With  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out  of  the  wells  of 
salvation."  Isaiah  xxxv.  6,  "  In  the  wilderness  shall  waters  break 
out,  and  streams  in  the  desert."  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  "  I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty."  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25,  "  Then  will 
I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  Jere- 
miah ii.  13,  God  says.  My  people  "  have  forsaken  me,  the  fountain 
of  living  waters."  Zechariah  xiv.  8,  "  Living  waters  shall  go  out 
from  Jerusalem."  (Compare  Ezekiel  xlvii.  1-5.)  Our  Lord  said 
to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  "  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and 
who  it  is  that  saith  to  thee,  Give  me  to  drink;  thou  wouldest  have 
asked  of  him,  and  he  would  have  given  thee  living  water."  (John 
iv.  10.)  On  another  occasion,  he  said,  '■'  If  any  man  thirst,  let 
him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  me  as  the 
Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living 
waters.  But  this  he  spake  of  the  Spirit."  (John  vii.  37,  38.) 
Revelation  xxi.  6,  "  I  will  give  unto  him  that  is  athirst  of  the 
fountain  of  the  water  of  life  freely."  xxii.  17,  "  Whosoever  will, 
let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely."  It  would  be  a  sad  mistake 
to  understand  by  water  in  all  these  passages,  the  pliysical  element, 
or  even  sacramental  water.    When  God  promises  to  sprinkle  clean 

VOL,  III.  38 


694         PART    III.     Ch.    XX. —  the   means    OF   GRACE. 

water  upon  us,  He  promises  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
when  Christ  says,  we  must  be  born  of  water.  He  explains  it  by 
saying,  we  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit. 

That  our  Lord,  in  John  iii.  5,  does  not  make  baptism  essen- 
tial to  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  regeneration  by 
the  Spirit,  is  the  more  probable,  because  Christian  baptism  was 
not  instituted  when  the  words  there  recorded  were  nttered.  It  is 
impossible  that  Nicodemus,  or  any  who  heard  those  words,  could 
understand  them  of  that  sacrament.  Christ,  however,  intended 
to  be  understood.  He  intended  that  Nicodemus  should  under- 
stand what  was  necessary  to  his  salvation.  He  was  accustomed 
to  hear  the  sanctifying  influence  of  God's  grace  called  water ;  he 
knew  what  the  Scriptures  meant  by  being  washed  with  clean 
water  ;  and  it  was  easy  for  him  to  understand  that  being  "  born 
of  water"  meant  to  be  purified  ;  but  he  could  not  know  that  it 
meant  baptism.  To  make  the  passage  refer  to  the  baptism  of 
John  is  out  of  the  question,  although  sustained  b}^  the  authority  of 
Grotius,  Episcopius,  Bengel,  Neander,  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Hof- 
man,  and  others.  The  baptism  of  John  was  confined  to  the  Jews. 
It  admitted  no  man  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Our  Lord  is  lay- 
ing down  the  conditions  of  salvation  for  all  men,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  understood  to  refer  to  a  baptism  of  which  the  Gentiles 
were  not  partakers,  and  of  which,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases, 
they  had  never  heard. ^ 

Another  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  the  fact  that 
in  the  sixth  and  eighth  verses  of  this  chapter,  where  our  Lord  in- 
sists on  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  he  says  nothing  of  being 
born  of  water.  It  is  simply  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  that  He 
declares  to  be  necessary.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  one  doc- 
trine is  taught  in  the  fifth  verse  and  another  in  the  sixth  and 
eighth  verses  ;  the  former  teaching  that  baptism  and  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  both  necessary,  and  the  latter  insisting 
only  on  a  new  birth  by  the  Spirit.  If  the  two  j^assages  teach  the 
same  doctrine,  then  the  fifth  verse  must  teach  that  being  born  of 

1  That  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  Christian  baptism  would  seem  plain,  (1.)  Because 
it  belonged  to  the  old  dispensation.  The  Christian  Cluirch  was  not  yet  established.  (2.)  -It 
bound  no  man  to  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world.  (.3.)  He 
baptized  all  Judea,  but  all  the  people  in  Judea,  pharisees  and  others,  were  not  thereby 
made  professing  Christians.  (4.)  It  was  a  baptism  simply  unto  rcpenlanct,,  as  a  prepar- 
ation for  the  coming  of  Christ.  (5.)  Those  who  were  baptized  by  John  w^re  rebaptized 
when  they  professed  to  become  Christians.  Of  the  multitudes  con  'erted  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  and  immediately  after,  many  no  doubt  had  been  baptized  ly  John,  and  yet  they 
were  baptized  anew.  And  according  to  the  interpretation,  almost  universally  received  in 
our  day,  of  Acts  xix.  1-G,  Paul  baptized  in  Ephesus  "certain  disciples"  ii'  the  name  ol 
the  Lord  Jesus,  who  had  already  been  baptized  by  John. 


§12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS    KFFICACY.  595' 

water  and  being  born  of  the  Sj^irit  are  one  and  the  same  thmg, 
the  one  expression  being  figurative,  and  the  other  hteral,  precisely 
as  in  Matthew  iii.  11,  where  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
of  fire  are  spoken  of. 

Again,  if  "  born  of  water  "  means  baptism,  and  "  born  of  the 
Spirit,"  spiritual  regeneration,  then  the  two  things  are  distinct. 
Accordingly  Liicke  says  that  being  "  born  of  water  "  is  a  figura- 
tive expression  for  repentance,  which  must  precede  regeneration 
by  the  Spirit.  "  The  spirit  of  wisdom  flees  the  sinful  soul,"  as  is 
said  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  Only  the  pure  in  heart  can  see 
God,  ovir  Lord  himself  teaches,  and  therefore  Liicke  argues  only 
those  who  truly  repent  are  susceptible  of  regeneration.^  This 
disjoining  the  two  things  as  distinct  is  natural,  if  the  one  refers  to 
baptism  and  the  other  to  inward  regeneration,  and  therefore  would 
indicate  that  regeneration  is  not  by  baptism,  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  advocates  of  baptismal  regeneration.  Hengstenberg 
also  makes  the  two  things  distinct.  Water,  he  says,  signifies  the 
remission  of  sins  ;  this  is  effected  in  baptism ;  the  new-birth  by 
the  Spirit  follows  after,  which,  in  his  view,  is  a  slow  process.^ 

All  the  arguments  against  the  doctrine  in  question  drawn  from 
the  general  teachings  of  the  Bible  are,  of  course,  arguments  agamst 
the  traditionary  interpretation  of  this  particular  passage. 

Another  passage  on  which  special  reliance  is  placed  as  a  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  Titus,  iii.  5. 
The  Apostle  there  says,  God  saves  us  "  by  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  By  "  the  washing  of 
regeneration  "  is  understood  baptism ;  and  the  Apostle  is  under- 
stood to  assert  two  things,  first,  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  sal- 
vation ;  and  second,  that  baptism  is,  or  is  the  means  of,  regenera- 
tion. It  is,  as  the  commentators  say,  the  causa  medians  of  an 
inward  change  of  heart ;  or,  as  Bishop  Ellicott  sa^^s  :  "  The  gen- 
itive TTttAtyyei-'ecrtas  appai'cntly  marks  the  attribute  or  inseparable 
accompaniments  of  the  Xovrpov,  thus  falling  under  the  general  head 
of  the  possessive  genitive."^  On  this  interpretation  it  maybe 
remarked,  — 

1.  That,  taking  the  words  Xovrpov  TraXiyyerecrtas  by  themselves, 

1  Commentnr  iiber  das  EvnnfieUum  des  Johannes,  von  Dr.  Friedrich  Liicke,  Professor  der 
Theologie  zii  Gi.ttingen,  M  edit.  Bonn,  IS-tO ;  part  i.  p.  522. 

'■i  -Das  Evan(jeUum  des  hdl'ujan  Juhaanes  erlduterl,  von  E.  W.  Hengstenberg:  Berlin, 
1861,  vol.  i.  pp.  18G-18!). 

3  A  Critical  and  Grammatical  Commentary  nn  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  with  a  revised 
Translation.  By  I't.  Rev.  Cliarles  J.  Ellicott,  D.l).,  Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Brisb)l. 
Andover,  1805,  p.  213. 


50G  TAirr    III.     Crr.   XX. —THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

tliey  may  have  the  meaning  attached  to  them.  They  may  mean 
that  baptism  is  the  cause  or  means  of  regeneration  ;  or,  that  re- 
generation is  its  inseparable  accompaniment.  But  this  is  very 
far  from  proving  that  they  eitlier  have  or  can  have  tliat  sense  in 
this  connection. 

2.  Admitting  that  these  words  are  to  be  understood  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  they  do  not  teach  that  regeneration  is  insep- 
arably connected  with  baptism.  When  Paul  speaks  of  the  "  gos- 
pel of  your  salvation,"  he  does  not  mean  to  say  that  salvation  is 
inseparable  from  the  mere  hearing  of  the  Gospel.  When  he  says, 
"Faith  Cometh  by  hearing,"  he  does  not  mean  that  all  who  hear 
believe.  When  our  Lord  says,  We  are  sanctified  by  the  truth, 
He  does  not  teach  that  the  truth  always  has  this  sanctifying 
efficacy.  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  Word  does  not  profit  unless 
"  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that "  hear  it.  So  St.  Paul  teaches 
that  baptism  does  not  effect  our  union  with  Christ,  or  secure  the 
remission  of  sins,  or  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  unless  it  be,  and  be- 
cause it  is  an  act  of  faith.  This  Bishop  Ellicott  admits.  He 
says  we  must  remember  "  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  baptism  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  no  mere  observance,  but  that  it  was  a 
sacrament  in  which  all  that  was  inward  properly  and  completely 
accompanied  all  that  was  outward." 

3.  Still,  admitting  that  the  words  refer  to  baptism,  they  may 
just  as  fairly  be  explained  '  Baptism  which  is  the  sign  and  seal 
of  regeneration,'  as  '  Baptism  which  is  the  means  or  invariable 
antecedent  of  regeneration.'  The  construction  indicates  the  in- 
timate relation  between  the  two  nouns,  without  determining  what 
that  relation  is,  whether  it  be  that  of  cause  and  effect,  or  of  a  sign 
and  the  thing  signified.  Calvin's  comment,  "  partam  a  Christo 
salutem  baptismus  nobis  obsignat,"  ^  is  therefore  fully  justified. 

4.  There  are,  however,  strong  reasons  for  denying  that  there  is 
any  reference  to  baptism  as  an  external  rite  in  this  passage. 

First,  the  genitive  TraAiyyeveo-ta?  may  be  the  simple  genitive  of 
apposition  :  '  the  washing  which  is  regeneration.'  There  are  two 
kinds  of  washing,  the  outward  and  the  inward.  We  are  saved  by 
that  washing  which  is  regeneration,  namely,  the  reiiewing  of  the- 
Holy  Ghost.  The  latter  clause  being  exegetical  of  the  former. 
This  interpretation  is  simple  and  natural.  It  does  no  violence  to 
the  meaning  of  the  words  or  to  the  construction  of  the  passage. 

Secondly,  if  the  latter  clause  be  not  exegetical,  it  must  be  acces- 
sary.    It  must  express  something  new,  something  not  expressed 

1  In  Noviwi  Testnmentuiii  Cummentarii,  edit.  Berlin,  1831,  vol.  vi.  p.  IIGO. 


p2.]  BAPTISM.     ITS    EFFICACY.  697 

by  the  former  clause.  The  Apostle  would  then  be  made  to  say, 
We  are  saved  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  also  by  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Which  amounts  to  saying.  We  are 
saved  b}^  regeneration  and  by  regeneration.  This  argument  can 
only  be  met  by  making  regeneration  mean  the  commencement,  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  progress  and  development  of 
the  new  life.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  analogy  between  this 
passage  and  that  in  John  iii.  5.^ 

1  Bishop  Ellicott  refers  to  "the  able  treatise  on  this  text  by  Waterland,  a  tract  which, 
though  extoiutiug  only  to  thirty  pages,  will  be  found  to  include  and  to  supersede  much  that 
has  been  written  on  this  subject."  The  treatise  thus  commended  furnishes  an  excellent 
illustration  of  the  difficulty  of  those  imderstanding  each  other,  who  differ  seriously  in  their 
modes  of  thinking  and  in  their  use  of  terms.  To  Waterland  himself,  and  to  those  who  agree 
with  him  in  his  theory  of  religion  and  in  his  use  of  words,  this  tract  doubtless  appears  well 
ordered  and  consistent;  by  the  majority  of  evangelical  Christians  of  our  day  it  can  hardly 
fail  to  be  regarded  as  full  of  confusion  and  contradictions.  (This  treatise  may  be  foimd  in 
Waterland;  Works,  edit.  Oxford,  184-3,  vol.  iv.  pp.  425-458.)  Waterland  begins  by  say- 
ing, (1.)  That  Titus  iii.  5,  teaches  that  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  God  saves  men 
"  by  the  sacrament  of  Christian  baptism,  considered  in  both  its  parts,  the  outward  visible 
sign,  which  is  water,  and  the  inward  things  signified  and  exhibited,  namely,  a  death  unto 
sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness,  therein  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God."  (Page 
427.)  (2.)  The  passage  distinctly  speaks  both  of  a  regeneration,  and  of  a  renovation,  as  two 
things,  and  both  of  them  wrought  ordinarily  in  one  and  the  same  baptism,  here  called  the 
laver  of  regeneration  and  of  renewing.  (3.)  "  Kegeneration,"  he  says,  "passively  consid- 
ered, is  but  another  name  for  the  new  birth  of  a  Christian :  and  that  new  birth,  in  general, 
means  a  spiritual  change  wrought  upon  any  person,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  use  of  bap- 
tism; whereby  he  is  translated  from  his  natural  state  in  Adam,  to  a  spiritual  state  in 
Christ."  (Page  429.)  Most  persons  in  our  day  would  understand  this  to  mean  that  re- 
generation is  a  subjective  change  in  the  state  of  the  soul ;  a  change  from  spiritual  death  to 
spiritual  life.  This,  however,  is  afterwards  denied.  Regeneration  is  not  a  change  of  mind. 
It  is  a  change  of  state.  It  is  a  change  in  the  relation  which  the  sinner  bears  to  God.  "  A 
translation  from  the  curse  of  Adam  into  the  grace  of  Christ.  This  change,  translation,  or 
adoption,  carries  in  it  many  Christian  blessings  and  privileges,  but  all  reducible  to  two, 
namely,  remission  of  sins  (absolute  or  conditional),  and  a  covenant  claim,  for  the  time  be- 
ing, to  eternal  happiness."  (Page  433.)  "  Eegeneration  on  the  part  of  the  grantor,  God  Al- 
mighty, means  admission  or  adoption  into  sonship  or  spiritual  citizenship:  and  on  the  part 
of  the  grantee,  namely,  man,  it  means  his  birth,  or  entrance  into  that  state  of  sonship,  or 
citizenship."  (Page  432.)  In  this  sense  regeneration  implies  no  subjective  change.  The 
soul  remains  precisely  in  the  same  inward  state  in  which  it  was  before.  Adoption  does  not 
change  a  man's  inward  state.  Waterland,  therefore,  maintains  that  Simon  Magus  was  re- 
generated although  it  did  him  no  good,  leaving  him  in  "the  gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the 
bond  of  iniquity."  Sonship  was  granted  him,  but  he  did  not  accept  it.  He  did  not,  how- 
ever, need  a  second  regeneration,  but  only  to  repent,  then  his  regeneration  or  adoption  in 
baptism  would  take  effect.  (Pages  442—444.)  In  this  sense  also  he  teaches  that  renovation 
or  "the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  must  precede  baptism,  as  well  as  attend  and  follow 
it.  It  must  precede  it  to  produce  faith  and  repentance,  without  which  regeneration  or 
adoption  does  no  good.  (Page  434.)  In  infants,  "their  innocence  and  incapacity  arc  to 
them  instead  of  repentance,  which  they  do  not  need,  and  of  actual  faith  which  they  cannot 
have."  (Page  439.)  Infant  baptism,  however,  effects  no  inward  or  subjective  change.  It 
leaves  the  soul  in  the  same  condition,  not  in  the  same  state  or  relative  position  in  which  it 
was  before.  On  page  433,  in  stating  the  difference  between  regeneration  and  renovation, 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  says,  "Regeneration  is  itself  a  kind  of  renewal;  but 
then  it  is  of  the  spiritual  state  considered  at  large;  whereas  renovation  is  a  "renewal  of 
heart  or  mind,"  a  "renewal,  namely,  of  the  inward  frame,  or  disposition  of  the  man." 
In  proof  of  this  difference  between  regeneration  and  renovation  he  says:  "Regeneration 


nDS  PART   TTI.     Ch.    XX. —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

Thirdly,  if  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  can  be 
shown  to  be  thoroughly  anti-scriptural,  then  it  cannot  be  taught 
in  Titus  iii.  5.  If  any  passage  admit  of  two  interpretations,  one 
opposed  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  the  other  in  harmony 
with  it,  we  are  bound  to  adopt  the  latter. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  Acts  xxii.  16,  where  it  is  recorded 
that  Ananias  said  to  Paul,  "  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  If  it  were  the 
clear  doctrine  of  the  Bible  that  baptism  does  wash  away  sin,  that 

may  be  gi-anted  and  received  (as  in  infants)  where  that  renovation  has  no  place  at  all,  for 
the  time  being:  and  therefore,  most  certainly,  the  notions  are  very  distinct."  Baptismal 
regeneration,  therefore,  involves  no  change  "of  heart  or  mind,"  no  change  "of  the  inward 
frame  or  disposition."  On  page  443,  in  justifying  the  assumption  that  Simon  Magus  was 
regenerated  by  his  baptism,  he  makes  the  benefits  of  baptism  merelj'  outward.  He  says 
that  "As  the  Holy  Spirit  consecrates  and  sanctifies  the  waters  of  baptism,  giving  them  an 
outward  and  relative  holiness:  so  He  consecrates  the  persons  also  in  an  outward  and  rela- 
tive sense,  whether  good  or  bad,  by  a  sacred  dedication  of  them  to  the  worship  and  service 
of  the  whole  Trinity:  which  consecration  is  forever  binding,  and  has  its  effect;  either  to 
the  salvation  of  the  parties,  if  they  repent  and  amend,  or  to  their  greater  damnation  if  they 
do  not." 

Thus  we  have  three,  if  not  four  different  definitions  of  regeneration  mixed  up  together 
in  this  treatise,  and  interchanged  one  for  the  other  to  suit  emergencies.  First,  the  word  is 
taken  in  the  sense  which  it  now  usually  bears.  It  is  the  new  birth,  a  change  of  heart,  the 
commencement  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul;  a  change  from  a  state  of  spiritual  death  to  that 
of  spiritual  life.  The  Christian  is  said  to  be  the  subject  of  three  births.  "  Once  he  is  bom 
into  the  natural  life,  born  of  Adam;  once  he  is  born  into  the  spiritual  life,  born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit;  and  once  also  into  a  life  of  glory,  born  of  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day." 
(Page  432.)  In  this  sense  regeneration  and  renovation  differ  as  the  commencement  and  the 
development  of  life  differ;  or,  as  in  ordinary  language,  regeneration  and  the  life-long  proc- 
ess of  sanctification  differ.  Secondly,  regeneration  is  made  to  mean  "  the  death  unto  sin." 
Romanists  teach  that  in  baptism  there  is  the  removal  of  sin  both  as  to  its  guilt  and  power, 
and  an  infusion  of  new  habits  of  grace.  Waterland,  on  page  427,  appears  to  confine  it  to 
the  death  of  sin,  which  on  page  439  he  explains  by  the  words  "  plenary  remission."  In 
words  already  quoted,  God  saves  us  "  by  the  sacrament  of  Christian  baptism  considered  in 
both  its  parts,  the  outward  visible  sign,  which  is  water,  and  the  inward  things  signified  and 
exhibited,  namely,  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness."  It  will  be  ob- 
served he  says  "inward  things,"  a  death  and  a  new  birth,  which  he  after  distinguishes  as 
regeneration  and  renovation.  In'  baptism,  therefore,  we  have  simply  "remission  of  sin," 
renovation  precedes  and  follows  it.  Thirdly,  he  makes  baptism  to  confer  a  covenant  claim 
to  the  privileges  or  blessings  all  included  under  the  heads  of  remission  of  sins  and  a  title 
to  eternal  happiness.  These  are  granted  to  adults  conditionally,  l.  e.,  provided  they  have 
faith  and  repentance;  and  to  infants  absolutely,  because  in  their  case  innocence  supplies 
the  place  of  faith  and  repentance.  This  implies  no  subjective  change.  It  is  simply  adop- 
tion, such  as  Paul  says,  in  Romans  ix.  4,  pertained  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation.  And  fourthly, 
he  teaches  that  baptism  confers  on  the  recipient,  whether  good  or  bad,  an  outward  and  rel- 
ative holiness,  by  consecrating  him  to  the  worsliip  and  service  of  God.    (Page  443) 

It  would  thus  appear  that  every  theory  of  baptism,  whether  Romanist  or  Protestant, 
High  Church  or  F.ow  Church,  Evangelical  or  Ritual,  can  find  support  in  this  treatise.  If 
the  clear  headed  Bishop  EUicott  has  a  clew  through  this  labyrinth,  he  would  do  well  to  im- 
part it  to  the  public.  The  great  characteristic  of  a  large  and  representative  class  of  the 
learned  theologians  of  the  Church  of  England  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  was  that  they  derived  their  theology  from  the  liible  through  the  medium  of  tho 
Fathers.  AVhereas  the  theologians  of  the  Continent  drew  their  doctrines  immediately  from 
the  Bible;  and  this  makes  the  difference  between  biblical  and  patristical  Christianity;  tht 
difference,  to  conmion  eyes,  between  twilight  and  noon. 


§  12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  599 

such  iiblntion  can  be  effected  in  no  other  way,  then  we  should  be 
forced  to  admit  that  Paul's  sins  had  not  been  remitted  until  he 
was  baptized.  But  as  this  would  contradict  the  plainest  teach- 
ings of  Scripture  ;  as  Paul  himself  says  that  God  called  him  by 
his  grace,  and  made  him  a  true  Christian  by  revealing  his  Son  in 
him,  by  opening  his  eyes  to  see  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  revelation  attended  the  vision  he  had  on  his 
way  to  Damascus ;  and  as  the  effect  of  that  spiritual  revelation 
was  to  transform  his  whole  nature  and  lead  him  to  fall  to  the 
ground,  and  say,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  "  no  one 
can  believe  that  he  was  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God,  dur- 
ing the  three  days  which  intervened  between  his  conversion  and 
his  baptism.  He  did  not  receive  baptism  in  order  that  his  sins 
should  be  washed  away  ;  but  as  the  sign  and  pledge  of  their  for- 
giveness on  the  part  of  God.  He  was  to  be  assured  of  his  for- 
giveness in  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  just  as  a  Gentile  jDroselyte 
to  Judaism  was  assured  of  his  acceptance  as  one  of  the  people  of 
God,  by  the  rite  of  circumcision  ;  but  circumcision  did  not  make 
him  a  child  of  God.  This  passage  is  perfectly  parallel  to  Acts  ii. 
38,  where  it  is  said,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  eh  a^co-tv 
dixapTLmv."  The  remission  of  sins  was  that  to  which  baptism  was 
related  ;  that  of  which  it  was  the.  sign  and  seal.  John's  baptism 
was  et's  /x€Tai/ottti/  uuto  repentance.  This  does  not  mean  that  his 
baptism  made  men  penitent.  But  it  was  a  confession  on  the  part  of 
those  who  received  it,  that  they  needed  repentance,  and  it  bound 
them  to  turn  from  their  sins  unto  God.  In  Luke  iii.  3,  it  is  said, 
Jolm  came  "  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  No  man  understands  this  to  mean  that  his  baptism 
secured  the  remission,  or  the  washing  away,  of  sin  in  the  experi- 
ence of  all  the  multitude  who  flocked  to  his  baptism.  Neither 
does  the  Bible  anywhere  teach  that  Christian  baptism  effects 
either  pardon  or  regeneration  in  those  still  out  of  Christ. 

Direct  Arguments  against  the   Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion. 

It  has  been  shown  in  the  note  on  the  preceding  page  that  the 
word  regeneration  in  the  phrase  "  baptismal  regeneration,"  is  used 
in  very  different  senses.  The  sense  usually  attaclied  to  it,  in  our 
day,  is  that  inward  change  in  the  state  of  tlie  soul  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  it  passes  from  death  unto  life  ;  by 
which  it  is  born  again  so  as  to  become  a  child  of  God  and  an  heir 


600       PART  III.    Cri.  XX. -tup:  means  of  grace. 

of  eternal  life.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  the 
doctrine  that  this  inward  saving  change  is  effected  in  baptism ;  so 
that  those  who  are  baptized  are  the  subjects  of  that  new  birth 
which  Christ  declares  to  be  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  those  who 
are  not  baptized  have  not  experienced  that  new  birth  and  are  not 
in  a  state  of  salvation. 

1.  The  first,  the  most  obvious,  and  the  most  decisive  argument 
against  this  doctrine  is,  that,  so  far  as  any  work  or  act  of  the  sin- 
ner is  concerned,  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  the  only  in- 
dispensable condition  of  salvation  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  "  As 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the 
Son  of  man  be  lifted  up  :  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  (John  iii. 
14-16.)  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  hfe : 
and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  :  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  "  (ver.  36).  "I  am  the  bread 
of  life  :  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger  ;  and  he  that 
believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst."  (John  vi.  35.)  "  This  is 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son, 
and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day  "  (ver.  40).  "  He  that  believeth  in  me, 
though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live  :  and  whosoever  liveth 
and  believeth  in  me  shall  never  die."  (John  xi.  25,  26.)  These 
are  the  words  of  Jesus.  This  is  the  gospel  wliich  the  Apostles 
preached,  going  everywhere  and  saying  to  every  sinner  whom 
they  met,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  (Acts  xvi.  31.)  "Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  is  born  of  God."  (1  John  v.  1.)  "  Who  is  he  that 
overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God  ?  "  (ver.  5.)  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but 
these  words  can  never  pass  away.  No  man  may  add  to  them,  or 
detract  from  them.  Whosoever  believes  on  the  Son  hath  ever- 
lasting life.  This  stands  firm.  It  matters  not  to  what  Church  he 
may  belong  ;  it  matters  not  whether  he  be  Jew  or  Gentile,  bond 
or  free,  learned  or  unlearned,  good  or  bad,  baptized  or  unbaptized 
whosoever  believes  shall  be  saved. 

Not  every  one,  however,  who  says  he  believes  is  a  ti'ue  be- 
liever ;  not  every  one  who  believes  as  the  devils  believe  ;  but  he 
who  has  that  faith  which  works  by  love  and  purifies  the  heart, 
the  precious  faith  of  God's  elect,  every  such  believer  is  sure  of 


§  12.  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  601 

eteriKil  life.  It  does  ]iot  follow  from  this  that  faitli  stands  alone  ; 
that  obedience  is  not  necessary.  But  obedience  is  the  fruit  of 
faith.  He  that  does  not  obey,  does  not  believe.  For  any  one, 
therefore,  to  say  that  although  a  man  truly  believes  the  record 
God  has  given  of  his  Son,  yet  that  he  is  not  a  Christian,  unless  he 
belongs  to  some  particular  church  organization,  unless  he  is  bap- 
tized with  water,  unless  he  comes  to  the  Lord's  table,  contradicts 
not  the  general  teaching  of  the  Bible  only,  but  the  fundamental 
principle  of  the  gospel  method  of  salvation.  Even  Gabriel  would 
not  dare  to  shut  the  gates  of  paradise  on  the  thief  converted  on 
the  cross,  because  he  had  not  been  baptized. 

2.  It  is  plain  that  baptism  cannot  be  the  ordinary  means  of  re- 
generation, or  the  channel  of  conveying  in  the  first  instance  the 
benefits  of  redemption  to  the  souls  of  men,  because,  in  the  case 
of  adults,  faith  and  repentance  are  the  conditions  of  baptism.  But 
faith  and  repentance,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  are  the  fruits 
of  regeneration.  He  who  exercises  repentance  towards  God  and 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  in  a  state  of  salvation  before 
baptism  and  therefore  in  a  state  of  regeneration.  Regeneration 
consequently  precedes  baptism,  and  cannot  be  its  effect,  according 
to  the  ordinance  of  God.  That  the  Apostles  did  require  the  pro- 
fession of  faith  and  repentance  before  baptism,  camiot  be  denied. 
This  is  plain,  not  only  from  their  recorded  practice  but  also  from 
the  nature  of  the  ordinance.  Baptism  is  a  profession  of  faith  in 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spuit;  not  of  a  faith  to  be 
obtained  through  the  ordinance,  but  of  a  faith  already  entertained. 
When  the  Eunuch  applied  to  Philip  for  baptism,  he  said :  "If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest."  Of  those  who 
heard  Peter's  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  it  is  said,  "  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized."  (Acts  ii.  41.)  On 
this  point,  however,  there  can  be  no  dispute.  The  only  way  in 
which  Romanists  and  Romanizers  evade  this  argument,  is  by 
denying  that  faith  and  repentance  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  or 
of  regeneration.  They  are  in  their  view  not  gracious,  but  natural 
works,  works  done  before  regeneration ;  works  which  leave  the 
soul  in  a  state  of  perdition.  But  in  this  they  contradict  the  ex- 
press words  of  Christ,  who  says,  whosoever  believes  shall  be 
saved.  And,  in  contradicting  Christ,  they  contradict  the  whole 
Bible. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  in  the  sense  above 
explained,  is  opposed  to  the  whole  nature  of  true  religion  as 
set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.     The  two  great  errors  against  which 


602    PART  III.  Ch.  XX  —THE  MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

the  Gospel,  as  taught  by  Christ  and  unfolded  by  his  Apostles,  was 
directed  ;  were  first  the  doctrine  of  human  merit ;  the  merit  of 
good  works,  the  doctrine  that  men  are  to  be  saved  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  character  or  conduct ;  and  the  second  was  ritualism, 
the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  and  inherent  supernatural  virtue  of 
external  rites  and  ceremonies.  Our  Lord  taught  that  men  were 
saved  by  looking  to  Him  as  the  dying  Hebrews  in  the  wilderness 
were  saved  by  looking  to  the  brazen  serpent.  He  further  taught 
that  unless  a  man,  no  matter  how  punctilious  in  observing  the 
ceremonial  law,  was  born  of  the  Spirit,  he  could  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  And  the  great  burden  of  apostolic  teach- 
ing was  first,  that  we  are  saved,  not  by  works  but  by  faith,  not  for 
our  own  righteousness,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  and  secondly,  that  religion  is  a  matter  of  the  heart,  not  of 
ritual  or  ceremonial  observances.  The  Jcavs  of  that  day  taught 
that  no  uncircumcised  man  could  be  saved.  Romanists  and  Ro- 
manizers  teach  that  no  unbaptized  person,  whether  infant  or  adult, 
is  saved.  The  Jews  taught  that  "  no  circumcised  person  ever 
entered  hell,"  provided  he  remained  within  the  pale  of  the 
theocracy.  Romanists  and  Romanizers  say  that  no  baptized 
person  is  ever  lost,  provided  he  remains  within  the  pale  of  the 
Roman  Church.  The  Jews  believed  that  circumcision  secured  its 
benefits,  not  only  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  but  from  its  own  sanc- 
tifying power.  This  was  only  one  aspect  of  the  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion by  works,  against  which  the  sacred  writers  so  earnestly 
protested.  "  He  is  not  a  Jew,"  says  St.  Paul,  "  which  is  one 
outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision,  which  is  outward  in  the 
flesh  :  but  he  is  a  Jew,  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is 
that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter  ;  whose  praise 
is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  (Rom.  ii.  28,  29.)  The  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  therefore,  is  that  he  is  not  a  Christian  who  is  one  out- 
wardly, but  that  he  is  a  Christian  who  is  one  inwardlj'^ ;  and  the 
baptism  which  saves  the  soul  is  not  baptism  with  water,  but  the 
baptism  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion by  rites  was,  in  the  view  of  the  Apostles,  a  much  lower  form 
of  doctrine,  more  thoroughly  Judaic,  than  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
by  works  of  righteousness. 

It  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  as  held 
by  Romanists  and  their  folloAvers,  changes  the  wliole  nature  of 
religion.  It  makes  mere  external  observances  the  conditions  of 
salvation,  assuming  that  outward  rites  are  exclusively  the  channels 
through  which  the  benefits  of   redemption  are  conveyed  to  the 


g  12.]  BAPTISM.     ITS   EFFICACY.  603 

souls  of  men.  It  excludes  from  the  hope  of  heaven  men  who 
truly  believe,  repent,  and  lead  a  holy  life  ;  and  it  assures  those  of 
their  title  to  eternal  life,  who  are  unrenewed  and  unsanctified. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  against  the  doctrine  under  consideration, 
is  derived  from  the  analogy  between  the  Word  and  sacraments 
everywhere  presented  in  the  Bible.  God,  it  is  said,  saves  men  by 
preaching ;  the  gospel  is  declared  to  be  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  ;  faith  is  said  to  come  by  hearing :  we  are  begotten  by 
the  Word :  we  are  sanctified  by  the  truth.  No  Christian,  whether 
Romanist  or  Protestant,  believes  that  all  who  hear  the  Gospel  are 
saved ;  that  it  is  always  the  vehicle  of  conveying  the  saving  and 
sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit.  Why  then  should  it  be 
assumed,  because  we  are  said  to  be  united  to  Christ  by  baptism, 
or  to  wash  away  our  sins  in  that  ordinance,  either  that  baptism 
"  ex  opere  operato  "  produces  these  effects,  or  that  the  Spirit 
always  attends  its  administration  with  his  saving  influences. 

5.  Again,  all  Christians  admit  that  multitudes  of  the  baptized 
come  short  of  eternal  life,  but  no  regenerated  soul  is  ever  lost. 
Our  Lord  in  teaching  that  none  but  those  who  are  born  of  the 
Spirit,  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  thereby  teaches  that 
those  who  are  thus  new-born  are  certainly  saved.  This  is  in- 
cluded also  in  his  repeated  declarations,  that  those  who  believe  in 
Him  have  eternal  life  ;  being  partakers  of  his  life,  if  He  Hves 
they  shall  Uve  also.  And  the  Apostle,  in  Romans  viii.  30,  ex- 
pressly declares  that  all  the  regenerate  are  saved.  Whom  God 
predestinates,  he  says,  them  He  also  calls  (regenerates),  and  whom 
He  calls,  them  he  also  justifies  ;  and  whom  He  justifies,  them  he 
also  glorifies.  If  baptism,  therefore,  is,  in  all  ordinary  cases, 
attended  by  the  regeneration  of  the  soul,  then  all  the  baptized 
will  be  saved.  If  they  are  not  made  the  heirs  of  salvation, 
they  are  not  made  the  subjects  of  regeneration. 

6.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  contradicted  by 
the  facts  of  experience.  Regeneration  is  no  slight  matter.  It  is 
a  new  birth  ;  a  new  creation  ;  a  resurrection  from  spiritual  death 
to  spiritual  life.  It  is  a  change,  wrought  by  the  exceeding  great- 
ness of  God's  power,  analogous  to  that  which  was  wrought  in 
Christ,  when  He  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high.  It  cannot  therefore  remain 
without  visible  effect.  It  controls  the  whole  inward  and  outward 
hfe  of  its  subject,  so  that  he  becomes  a  new  man  in  Christ  Jesus. 
The  mass  of  those  baptized,  however,  exhibit  no  evidence  of  any 
Buch  change.     There  is  no  apparent  difference  between  them  and 


604  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

the  unbaptized.  The  whole  population  of  Europe,  speaking  in 
general  terms,  are  baptized.  Are  they  all  regenerated  ?  Then 
regeneration  amounts  to  nothing.  This  doctrine,  therefore,  utterly 
degrades  regeneration,  the  precious  life-giving  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  To  say  that  those  who  receive  regeneration  by  baptism  in 
infancy  fall  away ;  that  the  principle  of  life  imparted  to  them, 
being  uncherished,  remains  undeveloped,  is  no  satisfactory  answer 
to  this  argument.  Life,  especially  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul,  is 
not  thus  powerless.  To  say  that  a  dead  body  is  restored  to  life, 
when  it  exhibits  no  evidence  of  vitality ;  or,  that  a  dead  tree  is 
made  alive  which  puts  forth  no  foliage  and  bears  no  fruit,  is  to 
say  that  it  is  alive  and  yet  dead.  It  is  true  that  a  seed  may  have 
a  principle  of  life  in  it  which  remains  long  undeveloped,  but  un- 
folds itseK  when  placed  under  the  normal  conditions  of  growth. 
But  the  normal  conditions  of  growth  of  the  principle  of  spiritual 
life  in  an  infant,  are  the  development  of  the  intelligence  and  the 
presence  of  the  truth.  If  these  conditions  occur,  the  growth  of 
the  germ  of  spiritual  life  is  certain.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
that  germ  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  life  in  Himself,  and  gives 
hfe  to  all  in  whom  He  dwells.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation is  contradicted  by  facts.  The  baptized  as  a  body 
remain  unchanged  in  heart  and  life. 

§  13.  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  Baptism. 
Its  Necessity. 

On  this  point  the  Lutheran  standards  hold  the  following  lan- 
guage. In  the  Augsburg  Confession  those  who  adopt  that  sym- 
bol say :  "  De  baptismo  docent,  quod  sit  necessarius  ad  salutem, 
quodque  per  baptismum  offeratur  gratia  Dei  ;  et  quod  pueri  sint 
baptizandi,  qui  per  baptismum  oblati  Deo  recipiantur  in  gratiam 
Dei.  Damnant  Anabaptistas,  qui  improbant  baptismum  puerorum 
et  affirmant  pueros  sine  baptismo  salvos  fieri."  The  Apology  for 
that  Confession  repeats  that  declaration,  and  affirms  "  tliat  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  not  in  vain  but  necessary  and  effectual  to 
salvation."  ^  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  two  catechisms 
of  Luther,  the  larger  and  smaller. 

This  doctrine  the  Lutheran  divines  have  softened  down.  They 
affirm  that  baptism  is  ordinarily  necessary  ;  yet  that  the  necessity 
is  not  absolute,  so  that  if  its  administration  be  prevented  by  una- 

1  Confessio  i.  ix.  et  Apologia  iv.  51;  Hase,  Lihri  Symbolici,  p.  12  and  p.  150.     "Quod 
baptismus  puerorum  non  sit  irritus,  sed  necessarius  et  cfficax  ad  salutem." 


§13.]  BAPTISM.     LUTHERAN   DOCTRINE.  605 

voidable  circumstances,  tlie  want  of  baptism  is  not  fatal.  Thus 
Gerliard,^  says  Docemus,  "  baptismum  esse  quidem  ordinarium 
initiationis  sacramentum  et  regenerationis  medium  omnibus  om- 
nino  etiam  fidelium  liberis  ad  regenerationem  et  salutem  neces- 
sarium ;  interim  tamen  in  casu  privationis  sive  impossibilitatis 
salvari  liberos  Christianorum  per  extraordinariam  et  peculiarem 
dispensationem  divinam."  Again  ^  he  says  :  "  Infantes  illos,  qui 
vel  in  utero  materno  ^  vel  repentino  quodam  casu  ante  baptismi 
susceptionem  exstinguuntur,  temere  damnare  nee  possumus  nee 
debemus,  quin  potius  statuimus,  preces  piorum  parentum,  vel  si 
parentes  hac  in  parte  negligentes  f  uerunt,  preces  Ecclesi;e  ad  Deum 
pro  his  infantibus  fusas  clementer  exaudiri,  eosdemque  in  gratiam 
et  vitam  a  Deo  recipi."  In  tliis  view  the  great  body  of  Lutheran 
divines  concur.  Dr.  Krauth  says  :  "  On  God's  part  it  is  not  so 
necessary  that  He  may  not,  in  an  extraordinary  case,  reach,  in  an 
extraordinary  way,  what  baptism  is  his  ordinary  mode  of  ac- 
complishing. Food  is  ordinarily  necessary  to  human  life  ;  so  that 
the  father  who  voluntarily  witliholds  food  from  his  child  is  at 
heart  its  murderer.  Yet  food  is  not  so  absolutely  necessary  to 
human  Hfe  that  God  may  not  sustain  hfe  without  it."  * 

Its  Effects. 

As  Lutherans  regard  baptism  as  ordinarily  the  necessary  means 
of  salvation,  they  must  hold  that  it  communicates  all  that  is 
essential  to  that  end.  It  must  be  the  ordinary  means  of  convey- 
ing the  merits  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  inward 
renovation  or  regeneration  of  the  soul.  Such  is,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  taught  in  the  standards  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  In 
Luther's  Larger  Catechism  it  is  said,  "  Quare  rei  summam  ita 
simplicissime  complectere,  banc  videlicet  baptismi  virtutem,  opus, 
fructum  et  finem  esse,  ut  homines  salvos  faciat.     Nemo  enim  in 

1  Gerhard,  Loci  Theologici,  xxi.  viii.  238;  edit.  Tubingen,  1769,  vol.  ix.  p.  282. 

2  Ibid.  p.  284. 

8  Romanists,  when  a  child  is  in  imminent  peril,  baptize  it  in  utero. 

4  The  Conservative  Hefui-mntion  and  its  Theology,  as  represented  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  in  the  History  and  Literature  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church-  By 
Charles  P.  Krautli,  D.D.,  Norton  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Sem- 
inar}', and  Professor  of  Intellectual  and  Moral  Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Philadelphia:  J.  B.  Lippincott  &  Co.  1871,  pp.  431.  We  are  sorry  to  see  that  Dr. 
Krauth  labours  to  prove  that  the  Westminster  Confession  teaches  that  only  a  certain  part, 
or  some  of  those  wlio  die  in  infanc}',  are  saved  ;  this  he  does  by  putting  his  own  construc- 
tion on  the  language  of  that  Confession.  We  can  only  say  that  we  never  saw  a  Calviuistic 
theologian  who  held  that  doctrine.  We  are  not  learned  enough  to  venture  the  assertion 
that  no  Calvinist  ever  held  it;  but  if  all  Calvinists  are  responsible  for  what  everv  Calvinist 
has  ever  said,  and  all  Lutherans  are  responsible  for  everything  Luther  or  Lutherans  hav« 
ever  said,  then  Dr.  Krauth  as  well  as  ourselves  will  have  a  heavy  burden  to  can-y. 


60G  PART  III.     Ch.    XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

hoc  baptizatur,  iit  princeps  evadat,  veruin  sicut  verba  sonant,  ut 
salvus  fiat.  Cffiterum  salvum  fieri  sciinus  nihil  aliud  esse,  quani 
a  peccati,  mortis  et  diaboH  tyrannide  hberari,  in  Christi  regnum 
deferri,  ac  cum  eo  immortalem  vitam  agere."  ^  Gerhard  says  all 
the  effects  of  baptism  may  be  included  under  the  two  heads 
mentioned  in  Titus  iii.  5,  regeneration  and  renovation.  The 
former  he  says  includes,  (^1.)  The  gift  of  faith.  (2.)  The  re- 
mission of  sins.  (3.)  Reception  into  the  covenant  of  grace. 
(4.)  Putting  on  Christ.  (5.)  Adoption  into  the  number  of  the 
sons  of  God.  (6.)  Deliverance  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and, 
(7.)  The  possession  of  eternal  life.  Under  the  head  of  renova- 
tion he  includes  :  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  begins  to  renew 
the  intellect,  the  will,  and  all  the  powers  of  the  soul ;  so  that  the 
lost  image  of  God  begins  to  be  restored ;  the  inward  man  is  re- 
newed, the  old  man  put  off,  and  the  new  man  put  on  ;  the  Spirit 
resists  and  gains  dominion  over  the  flesh,  that  sin  may  not  reign 
in  the  body.  The  same  doctrine,  in  different  words,  is  taught  by 
all  the  leading  Lutheran  theologians.^ 

To  what  is  this  Efficacy  of  Baptism  to  he  referred  ? 

The  effects  attributed  to  baptism  are  not  to  be  referred  to  any 
power  inherent  in  the  water  ;  nor  to  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
"  extrinsecus  accidens  ;  "  but  to  the  power  of  the  Spirit  inherent 
in  the  Word.  It  has  been  repeatedly  mentioned  that  Lutherans 
teach  that  there  is  a  divine,  supernatural  power  in  the  Word  of 
God,  which  always  produces  a  saving  effect  upon  those  who  hear 
it,  unless  it  is  voluntarily  resisted.  In  the  case  of  infants  there 
is  no  such  voluntary  resistance  ;  and  therefore  to  them  baptism  is 
always  efficacious  in  conveying  to  them  all  the  benefits  of  re- 
demption, which,  however,  may  be  forfeited  by  neglect,  unbelief, 
or  bad  conduct  in  after  life.  The  word  connected  with  baptism 
includes  the  command  to  baptize  ;  the  formula,  the  ordinance  being 
administered  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  and  especially  the 
promise,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
In  Luther's  Shorter  Catechism,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  Qui 
potest  aqua  tarn  magnas  res  efficere  ?  it  is  said,  "  Aqua  eerte 
tantas  res  non  efficit,  sed  verbum  Dei,  quod  in  et  cuni  aqua  est, 
et  fides,  quae  verbo  Dei  aquc\3  addito  credit.  Quia  aqua  sine  verbo 
Dei  est  simpliciter  aqua,  et  non  est  ba2:)tismus  :  sed  addito  verbo 

1  CntecMsmus  Major,  TV.  24,  2.5;  Hase,  ut  supra,  p.  .539. 

2  Gerhard,  ut  supra,  vol.  ix.  pp.  143-157.     For  other  Lutheran  theologians  see  Schinid 
Dogmatik  der  evan(jdhch-latlic rischc n  Kirclic,  Frankfort  and  Erlaugen,  1853. 


§  13.]  BAPTISM.     LUTHERAN   DOCTRINE.  GOT 

Dei  est  baptismus,  hoc  est,  salutaris  aqua  gratiag  et  vitce,  et  lava- 
crum  regenerationis  in  Spiritu  Sancto,  sicut  Paulus  ait  ad  Tit. 
iii.  5."  ^  These  ideas  are  expanded  in  the  Larger  Catechism. 
Among  other  things  it  is  there  said,  "  Ad  hunc  modum  ita  dis- 
cerne,  longe  aHam  rem  esse  baptismum,  atque  omnes  alias  aquas  : 
non  naturahs  essentitB  gratia,  sed  quod  huic  aliquid  pnestantioris 
rei  adjungitur.  Ipseenim  Deus  baptismum  suo  honestat  nomine, 
suaque  virtute  confirmat.  Eam  ob  rem  non  tantum  natiiralis 
aqua,  sed  etiam  divina,  coelestis,  sancta  et  sahitifera  aqua,  quo- 
cunque  alio  laudis  titulo  nobilitari  potest,  habenda  et  dicenda  est ; 
hocque  non  nisi  verbi  gratia,  quod  coeleste  ac  sanctum  verbum  est, 
neque  a  quoquam  satis  ampliter,  digne  et  cumulate  laudari  potest, 
siquidem  oninem  Dei  virtutem  et  potentiam  in  se  habet  compre- 
hensam.  Inde  quoque  baptismus  suam  accipit  essentiam,  ut  sac- 
ramenti  appellationem  mereatur,  quemadmodum  sanctus  etiam 
docet  Augustinus :  Accedit,  inquit,  verbum  ad  elementum,  et  fit 
sacramentum,  hoc  est,  res  sancta  et  divina."  ^  If  the  Word  com- 
prehends in  itself,  "  all  the  virtue  and  power  of  God,"  and  if  that 
Word  is  united  with  the  water  of  baptism,  it  is  easy  to  understand 
how  the  ordinance  has  all  the  potency  attributed  to  it. 

The  Condition  on  which  the  Efficacy  of  Baptism  is  suspended. 

That  condition  is  faith.  It  is  the  clearly  pronounced  doctrine 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  that  baptism  is  altogether  useless  or  void 
of  any  saving  effect,  unless  the  recipient  be  a  believer.  And  by 
faith  is  not  meant  mere  speculative  assent,  such  as  Simon  Magus 
had,  but  true,  living,  and  saving  faith.  On  these  points  th** 
Lutheran  standards  are  explicit.  In  the  Larger  Catechism,  it  is 
said  :  "  Qui  crediderit  et  baptizatus  fuerit,  salvus  erit.  Hoc  est : 
sola  fides  personam  dignam  facit,  ut  banc  salutarem  et  divinam 
aquam  utiliter  suscipiat.  Cum  enim  hoc  in  verbis  una  cum  aqua 
nobis  offeratur  et  proponatur,  non  alia  ratione  potest  suscipi,  quam 
ut  hoc  ex  animo  credamus.  Citra  fidem  nihil  prodest  baptismus, 
tametsi  per  sese  coelestis  et  intestimabilis  thesaurus  esse  negari 
non  possit."  And  again  it  is  said,  "  Absente  fide,  nudunl  et  in- 
efficax  signum  tantummodo  permanet."^ 

From  this  it  follows  that  in  the  case  of  adults,  faith  and  there- 
fore regeneration,  must  precede  baptism.  And  consequently  in 
their  case  the  design  and  effect  of  baptism  cannot  be  to  convey 
the  remission  of  sin  and  renovation  of  the  heart,  but  simply  to  con- 

1  Catechismus  Minor,  iv.  9,  10 ;  Hase,  p.  377. 

2  Catechismus  Major,  iv.  17,  18 ;  Ibid.  pp.  537,  538. 

3  IV.  33,  34,  and  73 ;  Hase,  pp.  541,  549. 


COS  PART   III.     Ch.   XX. -the  means    OF   GRACE. 

firm  and  strengthen  a  faitli  already  possessed.  Tims  Gerhard  and 
Baier  as  quoted  above,  say  :  ^  "  Adultis  credentibus  principaliter 
praistat  usiim  obsignationis  ac  testificationis  de  gratia  Dei,"  and 
"  Infantibus  quidem  geque  omnibus  per  baptismum  primuni  con- 
fertur  et  obsignatur  fides,  per  quam  meritum  Christi  applicatur. 
Adultis  yero  illis  tantum,  qui  fidem  ex  verbo  conceperunt  ante 
baptism!  susceptionem,  baptismus  earn  obsignat  et  confirmat." 

With  regard  to  infants  Lutherans  teach  that  they  have  true 
faith.  Gerhard  says  :  "  Nos  non  de  modo  fidei  sumus  solliciti, 
sed  in  ilia  simplicitate  acquiescimus,  quod  infantes  vere  credant."^ 
Chemnitz  says  :  "  Nequaquam  concedendum  est,  infantes,  qui  bap- 

tizantur,  vel  sine  fide  esse,  vel  in  aliena  fide  baptizari 

Aliena  quidem  vel  parentum  vel  offerentium  fides,  parvulos  ad 
Christu.m  iii  baptismo  adducit  Marc.  x.  13,  et  orat,  ut  propria 
fide  donentur.  Sed  per  lavacrum  aqu^  in  verbo,  Christum  Spuitu 
suo  infantibus  qui  baptizantur,  operari  et  efiicacem  esse,  ut  reg- 
num  Dei  accipiant,  non  est  dubium :  licet,  quomodo  illud  fiat, 
non  intelligamus."  Again,  "  Sicut  enim  circumcisio  etiam  par- 
vulorum  in  V.  T.  fuit  signaculum  justitias  fidei,  ita,  quia  m  N.  T. 
infantes  baptizati  Deo  placent,  et  salvi  sunt,  non  possunt,  nee 
debent  inter  uifideles  rejici,  sed  recte  annumerantur  fidelibus."  * 

As  the  word  produces  faith  in  those  who  hear  it,  provided  they 
do  not  resist  its  influence,  so  baptism  in  which  the  word  is  em- 
bodied (so  that  it  is  verhum  visihile)^  produces  faith  in  infants 
who  are  incapable  of  resistance.  On  this  subject  Dr.  Krauth 
says :  "  That  this  grace  is  offered  whenever  baptism  is  adminis- 
tered, and  is  actually  conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  whenever  the 
individual  receiving  it  does  not  present  in  himself  a  conscious  vol- 
untary barrier  to  its  efficacy.  This  barrier,  in  the  case  of  an 
individual  personally  responsible,  is  unbelief.  In  the  case  of  an 
infant,  there  is  no  conscious  vohmtary  barrier,  and  there  is  a 
divinely  wrought  receptivity  of  grace.  The  objector  says,  the 
infant  cannot  voluntarily  receive  the  grace,  therefore  grace  is  not 
given.  We  reverse  the  proposition  and  reply,  the  infant  cannot 
voluntarily  reject  grace,  therefore  the  grace  is  given.  When  we 
speak  of  a  divinely  wrought  receptivity  of  grace,  we  imply  that 
whatever  God  offers  in  the  Word  or  element  bears  with  the  offer 
the  power  of  being  received.  When  He  says  to  the  man  -with  a 
withered  arm,  '  Reach  forth  thine  arm  ! '  that  which  was  impos- 
sible by  nature  is  made  possible  by  the  very  word  of  command. 

1  Pages  518,  519. 

3  Loci  Theolofjici,  xxi.  viii.  §  230;  edit.  Tubingen,  1769,  vol.  ix.  pp.  275,  276. 

8  Loc.  Thevl.  iii.  Be  Baptismo,  edit.  Frankfort  and  Wittenberg,  IQh-i,  p.  147,  b,  of  third  8«t. 


§  14  ]   BAPTISM.     DOCTRLNE   OF   THE   CHURCH    OF  ROME.  GOO 

The  Word  and  Sacraments  per  se  break  up  the  absoluteness  of 
the  natural  bondage  ;  they  bring  an  instant  possibility  of  salva- 
tion. Grace  is  in  them  so  far  prevenient  that  he  who  has  them 
may  be  saved,  and  if  he  be  lost,  is  lost  by  his  own  fault  alone."  ^ 

§  14.  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism are  brief  and  comprehensive.  The  Canons  anathematize 
those  who  teach  that  Christian  baptism  has  no  superior  eflicacy  to 
that  of  John  ;  that  true,  natural  water  is  not  essential  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  sacrament,  or  that  the  language  of  our  Lord 
in  John  iii.  5,  '•  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,"  etc.,  is  to  be 
understood  metaphorically  ;  that  heretical  baptism  if  performed 
in  the  right  way  and  with  the  intention  of  doing  what  the  Church 
does  is  not  valid  ;  that  baptism  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  and 
not  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  also  those  who  deny  the  propriety, 
necessity,  or  efficacy  of  infant  baptism,  etc.  The  Roman  Cate- 
chism enters  much  more  fully  on  the  subject.  It  defines  baptism 
as  the  "  sacramentum  regenerationis  per  aquam  in  verbo."  Its 
material  is*"omne  naturalis  aquae  genus,  sive  ea  maris  sit,  sive 
fluvii,  sive  paludis,  sive  putei,  aut  fontis,  quai  sine  uUa  adjunctione 
aqua  dici  solet."  ^  The  form  prescribed  by  Christ  in  Matthew 
xxviii.  19,  is  to  be  observed.  As  baptism  is  an  ablution  it  may 
be  performed  by  immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling.  There  should 
be  sponsors  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  the  religious  education 
of  the  newly  baptized.  Sponsorship  is  such  an  impediment  to 
marriage  that  if  a  sponsor  should  marry  his  or  her  godchild,  the 
marriage  would  be  null  and  void.  Baptism  by  laymen  or  by 
womtn,  in  cases  of  necessity,  is  allowable.  Infants  receive  in 
baptism  spiritual  grace ;  "  non  quia  mentis  sua3  assensione  cre- 
dant,  seel  quia  '  parentum  fide,  si  parentes  fideles  fuerint,  sin 
minus,  fide  (ut  D.  Augustini  verbis  loquamur)  universa?  societatis 
sanctorum  muniuntur.'  "  Those  who  are  admitted  to  baptism  must 
desire  to  be  baptized.  Hence  the  unwilling,  the  insane,  the  un- 
conscious (nisi  vitoe  periculum  immineat),  are  not  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism.  In  the  case  of  infants,  the  will  of  the  Church 
answers  for  their  will.  Faith  also  is  necessary  ;  for  our  Lord 
says,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  So 
also  is  repentance.  "  Cum  baptismus  ob  earn  rem  expetendus  sit, 
ut  Christum  induamus,  et  cum  eo  conjungamur,  plane   constat, 

1  The  Conservative  Reformntion  and  its  Theology,  p.  439. 

2  II.  ii.  qmes.  4,  6  [7] ;  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symbolici,  vol.  i.  pp.  259,  260. 
VOL.  III.  39 


CIO  PART  III.     Ch.  XX.— the   means    OF   GRACE. 

ni(,'i-ito  a  siiera  ablutione  rejiciencTum  esse,  cui  in  vitiis  et  peccatia 
perseverare  propositum  est ;  prajsertim  vero,  quia  nihil  eorum, 
quie  ad  Cliristum,  et  Ecclesiam  pertinent,  frustra  suscipiendum 
est:  inaneraque  baptisnium,  si  justitije,  et  salutis  gratiara  specte- 
nius,  in  eo  futurum  esse,  satis  intelliginius,  qui  secundum  caniem 
ambulare,  non  secundum  Spiritum  cogitat :  etsi,  quod  ad  sacra- 
men  tum  pertinet,  perfectam  ejus  rationem  sine  ulla  dubitatione 
consequitur,  si  modo,  cum  rite  baptizatur,  in  animo  liabeat  id 
accipere,  quod  a  sancta  Ecclesia  administratur."  ^ 

The  first  effect  of  baptism  is  the  remission  of  sin.  And  by 
remission  is  meant  not  only  pardon,  but  the  removal  of  sin.  The 
soul  is  so  cleansed  that  nothing  of  the  nature  of  sin  remains  in  it. 
"  Hoc  primum  tradere  oportet,  peccatum  sive  a  primis  parentibus 
origine  contractum,  sive  a  nobis  commissum,  quamvis  etiam  adeo 
nefarium  sit,  ut  ne  cogitari  quidem  posse  videatur,  admirabili 
hujus  sacramenti  virtute  remitti,  et  condonari."  The  Catechism 
quotes  the  anathema  pronounced  by  the  Council  of  Trent  on  those 
who  teach,  "  Quamvis  peccata  in  baptismo  remittantur,  ea  tamen 
prorsus  non  tolli,  aut  radicitus  evelli,  sed  quodam  modo  abradi, 
ita  ut  peccatorum  radices  animo  infixae  adhuc  remaneant,"  ^  The 
language  of  the  Council  is,  "  In  renatis  nihil  odit  Deus,  quia  nihil 
est  damnationis  iis,  qui  vere  consepulti  sunt  cum  Christo  per  bap- 
tisma  in  mortem  :  qui  non  secundum  carnem  ambulant,  sed  vete- 
rem  hominem  exuentes,  et  novum,  qui  secundum  Deum  creatus 
est,  induentes,  innocentes,  immaculati,  puri,  innoxii,  ac  Deo  dilecti 
effecti  sunt."  ^  "  Concupiscentia,  quas  ex  peccato  est,  niliil  aliud 
est,  nisi  animi  appetitio,  natura  sua  rationi  repugnans :  qui  tamen 
motus  si  voluntatis  consensum,  aut  negligentiam  conjunctam  non 
habeat,  a  vera  peccati  natura  longe  abest."  * 

One  of  the  propositions  which  Perrone  lays  down  on  this  sub- 
ject, is,  that  "  Per  D.  N.  J.  C.  gratiam,  quae  in  baptismo  confer- 
tur,  reatus  originalis  peccati  remittitur,  ac  toUitur  totum  id,  quod 
veram  et  propriam  peccati  rationem  liabet."^ 

Baptism,  according  to  Romanists,  avails  not  only  for  the  remis- 
sion and  removal  of  all  sin,  but  also  for  the  inward  sanctification 
of  the  soul.  "Exponendum  erit,  hujus  sacramenti  virtute  nos  non 
solum  a  malis,  quie  vere  maxima  dicenda  sunt,  liberari,  verum 
etiam   eximiis  bonis  augeri.     Animus  enim  noster  divina  gratia 

1  II.  ii.  27  [xxxiii.]  30  [xxxviii.] ;  Streitwolf,  pp.  27G,  279. 

2  Cntechismus  Roiiinnus,  ii.  ii.  31  [xlii.]  ;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  280,  281. 

3  Sess.  V.  5;  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  19. 

<  Catechismus  Romnnns,  ii.  ii.  32  [xliii.];  Ihld.  pp.  281,  282. 

6  Prxhctiones  ThcoluyiccB,  Dn  Baptismo,  cap.  vi.  170,  5tli  edit   Turin,  1839,  vol.  vi.p.  59 


§  15.]  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.    THE  SCRIPTURAL  ACCOUNT.  611 

repletur,  qua  justi,  et  filii  Dei  effecti,  ceternce  quoque  salutia 
lieredes  iiistituimur.''  ^  It  thus  appears,  that,  according  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  all  the  benefits  of  the  redemption  of  Christ  are 
conveyed  to  the  soul  by  baptism ;  and  that  there  is  no  other 
divinely  appointed  channel  of  their  communication. 

The  Council  of  Trent  declared,  "  Si  quis  dixcrit,  in  tribus  sacra- 
mentis,  baptismo  scilicet,  confirmatione,  et  ordine,  non  imprimi 
characterem  in  anima,  hoc  est  signum  quoddam  spirituale,  et  in- 
delebile,  unde  ea  iterari  non  possunt;  anathema  sit."  ^  What  this 
internal  spiritual  something  is,  does  not  admit  of  explanation.  It 
neither  reveals  itself  in  the  consciousness  nor  manifests  itself  in 
the  life.  It  is  assumed  to  be  something  analogous  in  the  spiritual 
sphere,  to  the  insignia  of  merit  or  decorations  of  nobility  in  the 
sphere  of  civil  or  social  Hfe. 

§  15.  The  Lorcfs  Supper. 

The  passages  of  Scripture  directly  referring  to  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  following  :  Matthew  xxvi.  26-28, 
"  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it 
(euAoyryo-a?),  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said. 
Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup  and  gave 
thanks  (^vxo.pi(JTi]<Ta^'),  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all 
of  it :  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

Mark  xiv.  22-24,  "  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup ;  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he 
said  unto  them.  This  is  xaj  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is 
shed  for  many." 

Luke  xxii.  19,  20,  "  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is 
given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise  also  the 
cup  after  supper,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my 
blood,  which  is  shed  for  you." 

1  Coriiithians  x.  15-17,  "  I  speak  as  to  wise  men ;  judge  ye  what 
I  say.  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
nion of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  >vhich  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  For  we  being  many  are 
one  bread,  and  one  body ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread." 

1  Cutechismus  Homanus,  ii.  ii.  38  [1]  ;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  286. 

2  Sess.  vii.  Be  Sacramentis  in  genere,  canon  9 ;  Streitwolf,  pp.  39,  40. 


612       PAKT  m.   ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

1  Corlntliians  xi.  23-29,  "  For  I  liave  received  of  the  Lord  that 
wliich  also  I  deHvered  unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread :  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body, 
which  i&  broken  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the 
same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  r-aying, 
This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as 
ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he 
come.  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himseK, 
not  discerning  the  Lord's  body." 

Apart  from  matters  of  doubtful  interpretation,  these  passages 
plainly  teach.  First,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  divine  institution 
of  perpetual  obligation.  Second,  that  the  material  elements  to  be 
used  in  the  celebration,  are  bread  and  wine.  Third,  that  the  im- 
portant constituent  parts  of  the  service  are,  (1.)  The  consecration 
of  the  elements.  (2.)  The  breaking  of  the  bread  and  pouring 
out  of  the  wine.  (3.)  The  distribution  and  the  reception  by  the 
communicants  of  the  bread  and  wine.  Fourth,  that  the  design 
of  the  ordinance  is,  (1.)  To  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ. 
(2.)  To  represent,  to  effect,  and  to  avow  our  participation  in  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  (3.)  To  represent,  effect,  and  avow 
the  union  of  believers  with  Christ  and  with  each  other.  And 
(4.)  To  signify  and  seal  our  acceptance  of  the  new  covenant  as 
ratified  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  Fifth,  the  conditions  for  profit- 
able communion  are,  (1.)  Knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body. 
(2.)  Faith  to  feed  upon  Him.  (3.)  Love  to  Christ  and  to  his 
people. 

The  main  points  of  controversy  concerning  this  ordinance  are : 
(1.)  The  sense  in  which  the  bread  and  wine  are  the  bod}'  and 
blood  of  Christ.  (2.)  The  sense  in  which  the  communicant  re- 
ceives the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  this  ordinance.  (3.)  The 
benefits  which  the  sacrament  confers,  and  the  manner  in  which 
those  benefits  are  conveyed.  (4.)  The  conditions  on  which  the 
efficacy  of  the  ordinance  is  suspended. 

The  Lord^s  Supper  is  a  divine  Ordinance  of  perpetual  Ohligation. 

Tills  has  never  been  doubted  in  the  Christian  Church.  That 
Christ   intended   that  the  ordinance  should    continue  to  be  ob- 


§  15.]     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  ITS  PERPETUAL  OBLIGATION.  G13 

served  in.  his  Church  until  his  second  advent  is  plain,  (1.)  From 
his  express  command  given  in  Luke  xxii.  19,  and  repeated  by  the 
Apostle  in  1  Corinthians  xi.  24.  (2.)  The  design  of  the  ordinance 
which  is  declared  to  be  the  commemoration  of  Christ ;  the  con- 
stantly repeated  proclamation  of  his  expiatory  death  in  the  ears  of 
men  ;  and  the  communication  of  the  benefits  of  that  death  to  his 
people,  necessarily  assumes  that  it  is  to  be  observed  so  long  as 
Christ,  in  the  visible  manifestation  of  his  person,  is  absent  from  his 
Church.  (3.)  That  the  Apostles  so  understood  the  command  of 
Christ  is  plain  from  their  continviing  to  observe  this  ordinance 
to  which  such  frequent  reference  is  made  in  their  writings,  under 
the  designations,  "breaking  of  bread,"  "the  Lord's  Supper,"  and 
"  The  Lord's  table."  (4.)  The  uniform  practice  of  the  Church  on 
this  subject  admits  of  no  other  solution,  than  the  appointment  of 
Christ  and  the  authority  of  the  Apostles. 

The  names  given  to  this  sacrament  in  the  early  Church  were  very 
various.  It  was  called,  (1.)  Ei'xa;oto-rta,  not  only  by  the  Greeks  but 
also  by  the  Latins,  because  as  Chrysostom  says,  iroWow  Ittlv  euepye- 
rrjixdroiv  avd^xvqcri^}  It  is  a  solemn  thanksgiving  for  the  blessings  of 
redemption.  This  designation  being  so  appropriate,  all  Eng- 
lish spealdng  Christians  are  fond  of  calling  it  the  eucharist. 
(2.)  EuAoyia,  for  the  same  reason.  The  words  et-xapiorTe'w  and  euAoyeoj 
are  interchanged.  Sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the  other  is 
used  for  the  same  act,  and  hence  elx^apiaTLa  and  euAoyta  are  used  in 
the  same  sense.  In  1  Corinthians  x.  16,  St.  Paul  calls  the  sacra- 
mental cup  TO  TvoTrjpiov  Tys  ei/Xoyta?,  "the  cup  of  blcssiug,"  in  allusioH 
to  the  n:3i2n  Dii;  drunk  at  the  paschal  supper.  (3.)  Upiacfiopd, 
"  offering,"  because  of  the  gifts  or  offerings  for  the  poor  and  for 
the  service  of  the  Church  made  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  cel- 
ebrated. (4.)  @v:7La,  "  sacrifice."  Properly,  the  act  of  sacrific- 
ing ;  metonymically,  the  thing  sacrificed  or  the  victim  ;  tropically 
of  anything  offered  to  God,  as  obedience  or  praise.  In  Philip- 
pians  ii.  17,  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  sacrifice  and  service  of  faith  ;  " 
and  in  iv.  18,  he  says  that  the  contributions  of  the  saints  were  "an 
odour  of  a  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing  to  God." 
And  in  Hebrews  xiii.  15  we  read  of  a  Ovria  ahiaeu)-,  "  a  sacrifice  of 
praise."  The  praise  was  the  sacrifice  or  offering  made  to  God. 
The  Lord's  Supper  in  this  sense  Avas  at  first  called  a  sacrifice, 
both  because  it  was  itself  a  thank-offering  to  God  and  because 
attended  by  alms  which  were  regarded  as  tokens  of  gratitude  to 

1  fn  ^f'ltthenm  IlomiUa  xxv.  [xxvi.]  3  ;  Worhs,  edit.  Montfaucon,  Paris,  183G,  vol.  vii. 
p.  352  [310.  d]. 


614       PART  in    Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

Christ  for  the  benefits  of  his  redemption.  Afterwards,  it  was  so 
called,  because  it  was  a  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
upon  the  cross;  and  finally  because  it  came  to  be  regarded  by 
Romanists  as  itself  an  expiatory  sacrifice.  For  this  reason  the 
consecrated  wafer  is  by  them  called  "-hostia,"  the  host,  or  victim, 
because  it  was  assumed  to  be  the  true  body  of  Christ  offered  to 
God  in  expiation  of  the  sins  of  the  faithful.  (5.")  Mva-Typtov, 
something  secret,  or  having  a  sacred  or  secret  import.  As  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  a  significant  memorial  of  the  greatest  of  all 
mysteries,  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  cross,  it  was  ap- 
propriately designated  ixva-rijpiov.  This  word,  however,  is  applied 
in  its  general  sense  to  both  sacraments  and  even  to  other  sacred 
rites.  Another  reason  may  be  assigned  for  this  designation.  The 
Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  in  secret ;  in  so  far  that  the  pro- 
miscuous body  of  attendants  on  Christian  worship  was  dismissed 
before  the  sacrament  was  administered.  (6.)  2ijVa.';ts,  "the  assem- 
bly," because  from  the  nature  of  the  service  it  implied  the  coming 
together  of  believers.  (7.)  "  Sacramentum,"  in  the  general  sense 
of  fj.vcTTypioi',  by  way  of  eminence  applied  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  "  the  "  sacrament.  It  was  also  after  the  idea  of  the  sacrificial 
character  of  the  eucharist  became  prevalent,  called  "  sacramen- 
tum altaris,"  the  sacrament  of  the  altar.  This  designation  sur- 
vived the  doctrine  on  which  it  was  founded,  as  it  was  retained  by 
Luther,  who  earnestly  repudiated  the  idea  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  sacrifice.  (8.)  "  Missa,"  or  mass.  This  word  has  been 
variously  explained  ;  but  it  is  almost  universally,  at  the  present 
time,  assumed  to  come  from  the  words  used  in  dismission  of  the 
congregation.  "  Ite,  missa  est,"  "  Go,  the  congregation  is  dis- 
missed." First  the  unconverted  hearers  were  dismissed,  and  then 
the  catechumens,  the  baptized  faithful  only  remaining  for  the 
communion  service.  Hence  there  was  in  the  early  Church  a 
''  missa  infidelium,"  a  "  missa  catechumenorum,"  and  finally  a 
"  missa  fidelium."  There  seems  to  have  been  a  different  service 
adapted  to  these  several  classes  of  hearers.  Hence  the  word 
"  missa  "  came  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  tlie  Greek  word  Xetrovpyia 
or  service.  As  under  the  Old  Testament  the  offering  of  sacpificos 
was  the  main  part  of  the  temple  service,  so  in  the  Christian 
Church,  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  regarded  as  an  expiatory 
offering,  it  became  tlie  middle  point  in  public  worsliip  and  was 
called  emphatically  the  service,  or  mass.  Since  the  Reformation 
this  has  become  universal  as  the  designation  of  the  eucharist  as 
celebrated  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 


§15.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     THE   ELEMENTS.  615 

The  Elements  to  he  used  in  the  Loi'd^s  Supper. 

The  Avord  element,  in  this  connection,  is  used  in  the  same  sense 
as  the  Latin  word  "  elementiim,"  and  the  Greek  word  o-rotxeta, 
for  the  component  parts  of  anything ;  the  simple  materials  or 
rudiments.  Bread  and  "vvine  are  the  elements  employed  in  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  they  are  the  simple 
corporeal  materials  employed  as  the  symbols  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ. 

As  the  Lord's  Supper  was  originally  instituted  in  connection 
with  the  Passover,  there  is  no  doubt  that  unleavened  bread  was 
used  on  that  occasion.  It  is  evident,  however,  from  the  apostolic 
history,  that  the  Apostles  used  whatever  kind  of  bread  was  at 
hand.  There  is  no  significancy  either  in  the  kind  of  bread  or  in 
the  form  of  the  loaf.  It  is  enough  that  it  is  bread.  This  makes 
it  the  proper  emblem  of  Him  who  declared  Himself  to  be  tbe 
true  bread  which  came  doAvn  from  heaven. 

Although  it  seems  so  obvious  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
what  kind  of  bread  is  used  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  serious  con- 
troversy arose  on  this  subject  in  the  eleventh  century  between 
the  Greek  and  Latin  churches :  the  former  condemning  the  use 
of  unleavened  bread  as  a  remnant  of  Judaism,  and  the  latter 
insisting  not  only  on  its  propriety,  but  on  its  being  the  only  kind 
allowable,  because  used  by  Christ  himself  when  He  instituted 
the  sacrament.  The  two  churches  adhere  to  their  ancient  con- 
victions and  practice  to  the  present  day.  The  Lutherans  in  this 
matter  side,  in  their  practice,  with  the  Romanists.  The  Reformed 
regard  it  as  a  matter  of  indifference  ;  although  they  object  to 
the  "  placentulse  orbiculares,"  or  round  wafers,  used  by  Roman- 
ists in  this  ordinance ;  because  flour  and  water  or  flour  and  some 
glutinous  substance  is  not  bread  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
Avord.  It  is  not  used  for  nourishment.  The  use,  therefore,  is 
inconsistent  Avitli  the  analogy  betAveen  the  sign  and  the  thing 
signified.  The  euchai'ist  is  a  supper  ;  it  represents  our  feeding 
upon  Christ  for  our  spiritual  nourishment  and  groAvth  in  grace. 
Besides,  the  use  of  the  Avafer  Avas  introduced  Avith  the  rise  of  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  The  consecrated  bread  being 
regarded  as  the  real  body  of  Christ,  it  Avas  natural  that  it  should 
be  made  in  a  form  which  precluded  the  danger  of  any  particle  of 
it  being  profaned.^ 

1  The  question  of  the  kind  of  bread  used  in  the  eucharist  at  different  times  and  in  dif- 
ferent churches  is  discussed  with  jjreat  minuteness  of  detail  in  the  recent  work,  Notitia 


C16      PART  m.   ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

Some  of  the  Reformed  theologians  raise  the  question  whether 
in  places  where  bread  and  wine  cannot  be  obtained,  it  is  lawful 
to  use  in  their  stead  other  articles  of  nourishment,  the  most 
allied  to  them  in  nature  ?  This  question  they  answer  affirma- 
tively ;  while  they  insist  that  the  command  of  Christ  and  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles  should  be  strictly  adhered  to  where  such 
adherence  is  possible. 

B}^  wine  as  prescribed  to  be  used  in  this  ordinance,  is  to  bo 
understood  "  the  juice  of  the  grape  ; "  and  "  the  juice  of  the 
grape  "  in  that  state  which  was,  and  is,  in  common  use,  and  in 
the  state  in  Avhich  it  was  known  as  wine.  The  wine  of  the 
Bible  was  a  manufactured  article.  It  was  not  the  juice  of  the 
grape  as  it  exists  in  the  fruit,  but  that  juice  submitted  to  such  a 
process  of  fermentation  as  secured  its  preservation  and  gave  it 
the  qualities  ascribed  to  it  in  Scripture.  That  oTvo?  in  the  Bible, 
when  unqualified  by  such  terms  as  neiv,  or  sweet,  means  the  fer- 
mented juice  of  the  grape,  is  hardly  an  open  question.  It  has 
never  been  questioned  in  the  Church,  if  we  except  a  few  Chris- 
tians of  the  present  day.  And  it  may  safely  be  said  that  there 
is  not  a  scholar  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  who  has  the  least 
doubt  on  the  subject.  Those  in  the  early  Church,  whose  zeal 
for  temperance  led  them  to  exclude  wine  from  the  Lord's  table, 
were  consistent  enough  to  substitute  water.  They  were  called 
Tatiani,  from  the  name  of  their  leader,  or  Encratita?,  Hydro- 
parastatae,  or  Aquarii,  from  their  principles.  They  not  only 
abstained  from  the  use  of  wine  and  denounced  as  "  improbos 
atque  impios  "  those  who  drank  it,  but  they  also  repudiated 
animal  food  and  marriage,  regarding  the  devil  as  their  author.^ 
The}^  soon  disappeared  from  history.  The  plain  meaning  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject  has  controlled  the  mind  of  the  Church,  and 
it  is  to  be  hoped  will  continue  to  control  it  till  the  end  of  time.^ 

In  most  churches,  the  wine  used  in  the  Lord's  Sujjper  is  mixed 
with  water.    The  reasons  assigned  for  this  custom,  are,  (1.)  That 

Eiichnristicn,  a  Commentary.  Explanatory,  Doctrinal  and  Illstorical  on  the  Order  J'or  the 
Administratlun  of  the  Lord^s  Supper  or  Holy  Communion,  nccordiny  to  the  Use  of  the 
Church  of  I-'nylanl.  By  W.  K.  Scudamnro,  M.  A.,  Rector  of  Ditcliinrfham  and  formerly 
Fellow  of  St.  .lohii's  College,  Cainbrid,a;e;  Rivlngtous,  London,  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
1872,  pp.  749-765. 

1  Siiicei-,   Tlies'dirus  F.cchsiasticns,  sub   voce   2Ji'a|t5  :   edit.  Amsterdam,   1728,   vol.  ii. 
p.  11-2:!. 

'•^  This  is  not  the  place  for  the  discussion  of  what,  in  this  country,  is  called  "  The  Winp 
Question."    'I'he  reader  will  tind  it  amply  ventilated  in  the  Princeton  Review  for  April  and 
October,  1841,  in  two  articles  from  the  pen  of  IJev.  .John  ^laclean.  I).  D.,  and  more  recently 
by  the  Rev.  Lyman  H.  Atwater,  D.  D.,  in  the  same  Review,  October,  1871,  and  .January 
1872. 


g  15.]    THE  LORDS   SUPPER.     SACRAMENTAL   ACTIONS.      617 

the  eucharist  having  been  instituted  at  the  table  of  the  Paschal 
supper,  and  the  wine  used  in  the  Passover  being  mixed  with 
water,  it  is  morally  certain  that  the  wine  used  by  Christ  when 
instituting  this  sacrament,  was  also  thus  mixed.  Hence  it  was 
inferred  that  his  disciples  in  all  ages  should  follow  his  example. 
That  the  Paschal  cup  contained  wine  mixed  with  water  rests  on 
the  authority  of  Jewish  writers.  "  It  Avas  the  general  practice  of 
the  Jews  to  dilute  their  wine  with  water.  '  Their  wine  was  very 
strong,'  says  an  ancient  Jewish  writer,^  '  and  not  fit  for  drinking 
unless  water  was  mixed  with  it.'  "  ^  It  is  certain,  from  the  wri- 
tings of  the  fathers,  that  this  custom  prevailed  extensively  in  the 
primitive  Church.  As  the  Greeks  and  Romans  were  in  the  habit 
of  mixing  water  with  their  wine  on  all  ordinary  occasions,  it  is 
the  more  natural  that  the  same  usage  should  f)i'evail  in  the 
Church.  It  is  still  retained,  both  by  Romanists  and  by  the  Oii- 
ental  Church.  (2.)  Besides  this  historical  reason  for  the  usage  in 
question,  it  was  urged  that  it  adds  to  the  appropriate  significance 
of  the  ordinance.  As  water  and  blood  flowed  from  the  side  of 
our  Lord  on  the  cross,  it  is  proper,  it  is  said,  that  water  should 
be  mixed  with  the  wine  in  the  service  intended  to  be  commemo- 
rative of  his  death.  This  being  the  case,  the  quantity  of  the 
water  used  was  declared  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference.  In  the 
First  Book  of  Edward  VI.  prepared  for  the  Church  of  England, 
the  minister  was  ordered  to  put  into  the  cup  "  a  little  pure  and 
clean  water."  This  order  was  omitted  from  the  rubric,  and  has 
never  been  restored.  Merati,  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  says: 
"  A  little  water  ought  to  be  mixed  by  the  priest  with  the  wine 
on  the  altar,  not  .  .  .  .  for  necessity  of  the  sacrament  or  divine 
precept,  ....  but  only  of  ecclesiastical  precept  obliging  under 
mortal  sin."  ^ 

The  Sacramental  Actions. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  introductory  and  consecrating  prayer. 
The  object  of  this  prayer  is  threefold  :  — 

1.  To  give  thanks  to  God  for  the  gift  of  his  Son,  whose  death 
we  are  about  to  commemorate. 

2.  To  prepare  the  hearts  of  the  communicants  for  the  solemn 
service  on  which  they  are  attending.  To  this  end  the  prayer 
must  be  appropriate.  And  to  be  appropriate,  it  should  be  well 
considered.     This   is   a   matter   of   great   importance.     It  often 

^  Gloss  in  Lightfoot,  Ilora  ffebraicce  in  St.  Matthew  xxvi.  27,  n.  v.  0pp.  torn.  ii.  p.  380. 
2  Scudamore,  ut  supra,  p.  350. 

*  Note  by  Merati  in  Gavanti.  Commentaria  in  Rubricas  Missalis  Romani.  pars  ill.  tit.  iv, 
n.  vi.;  Thesaurus  Sacrorum  Rituum,  auctore  Gavanto.   Augsburg,  1763,  vol.  i.  p.  333.  b. 


618  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

happens  that  the  prayers  offered  on  such  occasions  are  long  and 
ramblhig.  Petitions  are  offered  for  all  classes  of  men ;  for  the 
young  and  old ;  for  the  sick  and  afflicted ;  for  Sunday-schools ; 
for  missions,  and  all  the  other  objects  usually  embraced  in  the 
long  prayer  before  the  sermon.  The  consequence  is,  that  the 
minds  of  the  people  are  distracted.  Their  attention  is  turned 
away  from  the  service  before  them  ;  and  they  are  much  less  pre- 
pared to  celebrate  the  Lord's  death  when  the  prayer  is  ended, 
than  they  were  before  it  began.  This  is  as  inappropriate  and  as 
hurtful  as  it  would  be  for  a  minister  to  spend  his  strength  in 
jjraying  for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  or  the  Jews,  when 
kneeling  at  the  bedside  of  a  dying  sinner.  The  officiating 
clergyman  little  thinks  of  the  pain  he  inflicts  by  such  desultory 
prayers.  He  not  only  puts  himself  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
people,  but  there  is  a  constant  antagonism  between  him  and 
them  during  the  progress  of  the  prayer,  and  when  it  is  over  there 
is  a  painful  effort  to  collect  their  scattered  thoughts,  and  to  sup- 
press the  feelings  of  disapprobation,  displeasure,  and  sense  of  in- 
jury awakened  by  the  want  of  thought  or  want  of  tact  on  the 
part  of  the  pastor. 

3.  The  third  object  of  this  introductory  prayer,  is  the  conse- 
cration of  the  elements.  Bread  and  wine  in  themselves,  or  as 
found  in  common  use,  are  not  the  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ.  They  become  such  only  by  being  set  apart  for  that 
purpose.  This  is  an  important  part  of  the  service  ;  and  there- 
fore, is  made  prominent  in  the  liturgies  of  all  Churches,  and 
especially  enjoined  not  only  in  our  Directory  for  Worship,  but 
also  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  in  our  Larger  Catechism.^ 

In  all  these  points  there  is  an  analogy  between  this  prayer  and 
"  the  grace  before  meat,"  used  at  an  ordinary  meal.  In  that 
service  we  recognize  the  goodness  of  God  in  providing  food  for 
our  bodies  ;  we  prepare  our  minds  for  tlie  thankful  reception  of 
liis  gifts ;  and  we  pray  that  the  portion  received  may  be  set 
apart  or  rendered  effectual  for  tlie  renewal  of  our  strengtli. 
When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  our  Lord  gave  thanks  or  blessed 
tlie  cup  and  the  bread,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  He  not  only 
tlianked  God  for  his  mercies,  but  that  He  also  invoked  his  bless- 
ing, or,  in  other  words,  prayed  that  the  bread  and  wine  might  be, 
what  He  intended  them  to  be,  the  symbols  of  his  body  and 
blood,  and  the  means  of  spiritual  nourisliment  to  his  disciples. 
Tins  is  also  taught  by  the  Apostle  in  1  Corinthians  x.  16,  where 

1  Directory,  viii.  5;  Cun/tssion,  xxix.  3;  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  161). 


§  15.]     THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     SACRAMENTAL   ACTIONS.      619 

lie  speaks  of  '■'•  the  cup  of  blessing,"  i.  e.,  the  cup  which  has  been 
blessed,  or  consecrated  by  prayer  to  a  sacred  use  ;  as  is  explained 
by  the  following  words,  "  which  we  bless." 

Breaking  the  Bread. 

This  is  the  second  of  the  prescribed  sacramental  actions.  It  is 
an  important,  because  it  is  a  significant,  part  of  the  service. 
Christ  broke  the  bread  which  He  gave  to  his  disciples.  The 
bread  is  the  symbol  not  merely  of  Christ's  body,  but  of  his 
body  as  broken  for  us.  "  The  bread  which  we  break,"  says  the 
Apostle,  thereby  showing  that  the  breaking  was  a  constituent 
part  of  the  service.  So  significant  is  this  act  that  it  was  used  as 
a  designation  of  the  sacrament  itself,  which  was  called  the 
"  breaking  of  bread,"  Acts  ii.  42.  The  breaking  of  the  bread  en- 
ters into  the  significancy  of  the  ordinance  not  only  as  referring  to 
the  broken  body  of  Christ,  but  also  as  the  participation  of  one 
bread  is  the  symbol  of  the  unity  of  believers.  There  is  one 
bread,  and  one  body.  This  significance  is  lost,  when  separate 
wafers  are  distributed  to  the  communicants.  Above  all  it  is  ex- 
pressly commanded.  It  is  recorded  that  Christ  blessed,  broke, 
and  gave  the  bread  ;  and  then  added :  "  This  do."  The  com- 
mand includes  the  blessing,  the  breaking,"  and  the  giving. 

This  important  part  of  the  service  continued  to  be  observed  in 
the  Church  until  the  doctrine  that  the  bread  after  consecration  is 
the  real  body  of  Christ  began  to  prevail.  Then  the  use  of  the 
wafer  was  introduced,  which  is  placed  unbroken  in  the  mouth  of 
the  communicant.  This  is  clearly  a  departure  from  apostolic 
usage,  and  evinces  a  departure  from  apostolic  doctrine. 

The  Distribution  and  Reception  of  the  Elements. 

It  is  recorded  that  Christ  after  having  blessed  the  bread  and 
broken  the  bread,  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  saying:  "  Take,  eat." 
And  in  like  manner  after  having  blessed  the  cup,  he  gave  it  to 
them,  saying :  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it."  All  this  is  significant. 
Christ  gives  ;  the  disciples,  each  one  for  himself,  receive  and 
partake  of  the  offered  gifts. 

From  all  this  it  is  clear,  (1.)  That  it  is  contrary  to  the  rule 
prescribed  in  Scripture  when  the  communicant  does  not  for  him- 
self, receive  with  his  own  hand  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine. 
(2.)  That  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  Avith  the  nature  of  the  sacra- 
ment, when,  as  in  the  private  masses  of  the  Romanists,  the  offi- 
ciatuig  priest  alone  partakes  of  the  consecrated  bread  or  wine. 


620       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

(3.)  Tliat  it  is  against  tlie  nature  of  the  sacrament,  -when  instead 
of  the  two  elements  being  distributed  separately,  the  bread  is 
dipped  into  the  wine,  and  both  are  received  together.  This  mode 
of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper,  was,  it  is  said,  introduced  at 
first,  only  in  reference  to  the  sick ;  then  it  was  practised  in  some 
of  the  monasteries  ;  and  was  partially  introduced  into  the  par- 
ishes. It  never,  however,  received  the  sanction  of  the  Roman 
Church.  In  the  Greek  and  the  other  oriental  churches  it  became 
the  ordinary  method,  so  far  as  the  laity  are  concerned.  The 
bread  and  wine  are  mixed  together  in  the  cup,  and,  by  a  spoon, 
placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  recipient.  Among  the  Syrians  the 
usual  custom  was  for  the  priest  to  take  a  morsel  of  bread,  dip  it 
in  the  wine  and  place  it  in  the  mouth  of  the  communicant. 
From  the  East  this  passed  for  a  time  over  to  the  West,  but  was 
soon  superseded  by  a  still  greater  departure  from  the  Scriptural 
rule.^  (4.)  The  most  flagrant  violation  of  the  integrity  of  this  sac- 
rament is  that  of  which  the  Church  of  Rome  for  the  last  seven 
hundred  years  has  been  guilty,  in  withholding  the  cup  from  the 
laity.  This  is  inconsistent  not  only  with  the  command  of  Christ, 
and  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  but  also  with  the  practice  of 
the  Universal  Church  for  eleven  hundred  years.  This  is  not 
denied  by  Romanists  themselves.  They  do  not  pretend  to  claim 
the  authority  of  antiquity  for  this  custom.  They  fall  back  on 
the  authority  of  the  Church.  They  deny,  indeed,  that  the  words 
of  Christ  include  a  command  that  the  ^vine  as  well  as  the  bread 
should  be  distributed  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but  they  affirm  that 
after  consecration,  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  is  trans- 
muted into  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  ;  and  that  as  his  body 
and  blood  are  inseparable,  they  who  receive  the  bread  do  thereby 
receive  his  blood ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  whole  benefit  of  the 
sacrament  is  experienced  by  the  laity  although  the  cup  be  with- 
held from  them.  This  being  the  case,  they  maintain  that  it  is 
wise  in  the  Church,  for  prudential  reasons,  especially  to  avoid 
the  danger  of  the  blood  of  Christ  being  spilled  and  profaned,  to 
confine  the  administration  of  the  cup  to  the  clergy.  On  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  whole  Christ  is  in  the  bread,  the  language  ol  the 
Council  of  Trent  is  :  ^  "Si  quis  negaverit,  in  venerabili  Sacra- 
mento eucharisticB  sub  unaquaque  specie,  et  sub  singuhs  cuj  usque 
speciei    partibus,    separatione  facta,  totum    Christum   contineri ; 

1  Suicer,  Thesaurus   Ecdednsticus,   ut    supra,   vol.    ii.    p.   1127.      Scudamore,  Notitia 
Sfichai-isticn,  ut  supra,  pp.  614-618. 
'■^  Sess.  xiii.  canon  3;  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symbolici,  vol.  i.  p.  51. 


§  15.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     ITS   DESIGN.  621 

anathema  sit."  The  comment  of  Perrone  on  these  words  is  aa 
follows  :  "  HiBC  porro  Veritas  est  corollarium  dogmatis  de  tran- 
substantione  ;  panis  enim  et  vinum  per  consecrationem  convertuntur 
in  illud  Christi  corpus  et  sanguinem,  qui  in  coelis  est,  et  in  eodem 
statu  glorioso  ;  jam  vero  corpus  illud  inseparabile  est  a  sanguine, 
anima  et  divinitate,  et  e  converso  pariter  sanguis  separari  nequit 
a  corpore,  anima,  et  divinitate,  ergo  sub  quavis  specie  totus  Chris- 
tus  prassens  fiat  necesse  est."^  Withholding  the  cup  from  the 
laity  is  therefore  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
and  must  fall  with  it.  The  custom  was  introduced  gradually, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  Council  of  Constance,  A.  d.  1415, 
that  it  was  made  a  law  in  the  Latin  Church.  And  that  Council 
admits  that  its  action  was  contrary  to  the  primitive  practice,  for 
it  says  :  "  Although  in  the  primitive  Church  this  sacrament  was 
received  under  both  kinds,  yet  has  this  custom  been  introduced, 
that  it  should  be  taken  by  the  celebrants  under  both  kinds,  and 
by  the  laity  under  the  kind  of  bread  only.  Wherefore  since  this 
custom  has  been  introduced  by  the  Church  and  the  holy  fathers 
on  reasonable  grounds,  and  has  been  very  long  observed,  it  is  to 
be  accounted  for  a  law,  etc."  ^ 

The  Design  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

As  the  death  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  for  us  men  and  fox 
our  salvation  is  of  all  events  the  most  important,  it  should  be  held 
in  perpetual  remembrance.  It  was  to  this  end  that  our  blessed 
Lord  instituted  this  sacrament,  and  accompanied  the  institution 
with  the  command,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  And  the 
Apostle  in  1  Corinthians  xi.  26,  tells  his  readers,  "  As  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread,  and  drmk  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come."  This  itself  is  of  great  importance.  The  fact  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  celebrated  without  interruption  in 
the  Church,  from  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  to  the  present  time,  is 
an  irresistible  proof  of  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  event  which  it 
is  intended  to  commemorate.  It  is,  therefore,  just  as  certain  that 
Christ  died  upon  the  cross  as  that  Christians  everywhere  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  not  only,  however,  the  fact  of  Christ's 
death,  which  this  sacrament  thus  authenticates ;  but  also  its  design. 
Our  Lord  declared  that  He  died  as  a  substitute  and  sacrifice. 
"This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you;"  or,  as  the  Apostle 
reports  it,  "broken  for  you,"     "This  is  my  blood  of  the  New 

1  Proelectiones  Theologicw,  5th  edit.  Turin,  1839,  vol.  v\.  p.  1G8. 

2  Notitia  Eucharistica,  ut  supra,  p.  624. 


022  PAllT  m.     Cn.    XX. —  THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

Testament,  whicli  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
Redemption,  therefore,  is  not  by  power,  or  by  teaching,  or  by 
moral  influence,  but  by  expiation.  It  is  this  truth  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  exhibits  and  authenticates.  Still  further,  as  Christ 
affirms  that  his  body  was  to  be  broken  and  his  blood  shed  for  the 
remission  of  sin,  this  from  the  nature  of  the  case  involves  on  his 
part  the  promise  and  pledge,  that  the  sins  of  those  who  receive 
and  trust  Him,  shall  certainly  be  forgiven.  The  sacrament  thus 
becomes  not  only  a  sign  but  also  a  seal.  It  is  the  handwriting 
and  signet  of  the  Son  of  God  attached  to  the  promise  of  redemp- 
tion. As,  therefore,  the  truth  revealed  in  the  Word  has  the 
highest  power  that  can  belong  to  truth  in  its  normal  influence  on 
the  human  mind  ;  so  even  the  natural  effect  of  the  truths  symbol- 
ized and  authenticated  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  to  confirm  the 
faith  of  the  believer.  But  as  the  natural  or  objective  power  of 
the  truth  as  revealed  in  the  Word  is  insufficient  for  conversion  or 
sanctification  without  the  supernatural  influences  of  the  Spirit,  so 
the  truths  set  forth  in  the  eucharist  avail  nothing  towards  our 
salvation  unless  the  Spirit  of  all  grace  gives  them  effect.  On  the 
other  hand,  as  the  Word  when  attended  by  the  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit,  becomes  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation ; 
so  does  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  when  thus  attended, 
become  a  real  means  of  grace,  not  only  signifying  and  sealing,  but 
really  conveying  to  the  beheving  recipient,  Christ  and  all  the 
benefits  of  his  redemption. 

In  the  Lord's  Supper,  therefore,  the  believer  receives  Christ. 
He  receives  his  body  and  blood.  The  Apostle  asserts  that  the 
bread  which  we  break  is  a  participation  (kou  wi  t'u)  of  the  bod}'^  of 
Christ,  and  that  the  cup  which  we  bless  is  a  participation  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.  (1  Cor.  x.  16.)  Our  Lord  in  John  vi.  53  says, 
"  Except  yet  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood, 
ye  have  no  life  in  you."  There  must  be  a  sense,  therefore,  in 
which  believers  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  effect 
of  this  reception  of  Christ  is  two  fold.  First,  He  and  his  people 
become  one  ;  and  secondly,  all  true  believers  in  virtue  of  this  union 
with  Christ  become  one  body  "  and  every  one  members  one  of  an- 
other." Christ  and  his  people  are  one  in  such  a  sense  that  it  is 
not  they  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  them.  (Gal.  ii.  20.) 
He  dwells  in  them  ;  his  life  is  their  life  ;  because  He  lives  they 
shall  live  also.  (John  xiv.  19.)  They  are  one  in  a  sense  analo- 
gous to  that  in  which  the  head  and  members  of  the  human  body 
are  one.     The  Holy  Spirit  given  to  Hira  without  measure  is  com- 


§15.]         QUALIFICATIONS   FOR   THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.  623 

municated  toliis  people  so  that  they  become  one  body  fitly  joined 
together.  (Eph.  iv.  16.)  By  one  Spirit  they  are  all  baptized  mto 
one  body.  (1  Cor.  xii.  13.)  This  union  betwaen  Christ  and  his 
people  is  also  illustrated  by  the  union  between  the  vine  and  its 
branches.  The  life  of  the  vine  and  of  its  branches  is  one.  (John 
XV.)  Again,  Christ  and  his  people  are  one,  as  husband  and  wife 
are  one  flesh.  "We  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and 
of  his  bones."     (Eph.  v.  30.) 

In  being  thus  united  to  Christ  as  their  common  head,  believers 
become  one  body,  in  a  mystical  sense.  The  Holy  Spirit  dwelling 
in  each  and  in  all  constitutes  them  one.  They  have  one  principle 
of  life.  The  Spirit  works  in  all  alike  "both  to  will  and  to  do." 
They  have,  consequently,  one  faith,  and  one  religious  experience, 
as  well  as  one  Lord,  and  one  God  and  Father.  They  are  so 
bound  together  that  if  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer 
with  it ;  or  if  one  member  be  honoured,  all  the  members  rejoice 
with  it.  (1  Cor.  xii.  26.)  So  far  as  this  all  churches  seem  to 
agree.  They  all  admit  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  believers  are 
thus  united  to  Christ  and  to  one  another. 

Qualifications  for  the  Lord''s  Supper. 

It  is  plain  from  the  preceding  account  of  the  nature  and  design 
of  this  sacrament,  that  it  is  intended  for  believers  ;  and  that  those 
who  come  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  do  thereby  profess  to  be  his  dis- 
ciples. If  sincere  in  this  profession,  they  receive  the  inestimable 
gifts  which  it  is  intended  to  convey.  If  insincere,  they  eat  and 
drink  judgment  to  themselves.  The  Apostle,  therefore,  argues 
that  as  those  who  partook  of  the  Jewish  altars  did  thereby  pro- 
fess to  be  Jews  ;  and  as  those  who  participated  in  the  heathen 
saciifices,  did  thereby  profess  to  be  heathen  ;  so  those  who  par- 
take in  the  Lord's  Supper,  do  thereby  profess  to  be  Christians. 
But  to  be  a  Christian  a  man  must  have  competent  knowledge  of 
Christ  and  of  his  gospel.  He  must  believe  the  record  which  God 
has  given  of  his  Son.  He  must  believe  that, Christ  died  for  our 
sins  ;  that  his  body  was  broken  for  us.  He  must  accept  of  Christ 
as  He  is  thus  offered  to  him  as  a  propitiation  for  sin.  All  this,  or, 
the  profession  of  all  this  is  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  ser- 
vice. The  faith,  however,  of  those  who  would  acceptably  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  faith  not  only  in  Christ,  but  also  in  the 
sacrament  itself.  That  is,  faith  in  its  divine  appointment,  and  in 
its  being  what  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  declared  to  be.  We 
must  not  look  upon  it  as  a  mere  human  device,  as  a  mere  ritual 


624         PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means   OF    GRACE. 

observance  or  ceremony  ;  but  as  a  means  ordained  by  God  of  sig- 
nifying, sealing,  and  conveying  to  believers  Christ  and  the  bene- 
fits of  his  redemption.  The  reason  why  believers  receive  so  little 
by  their  attendance  on  this  ordinance  is,  that  they  expect  so  little. 
They  expect  to  have  their  affections  somewhat  stirred,  and  their 
faith  somewhat  strengthened ;  but  they  perhaps  rarely  expect  so 
to  receive  Christ  as  to  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God.  Yet 
Christ  in  offering  Himself  to  us  in  this  ordinance,  offers  us  all  of 
God  we  are  capable  of  receiving.  For  we  are  complete  (ttcttAt^pw- 
ueVot)  filled,  i.  e.,  filled  with  the  fulness  of  God  in  Him.  (Col. 
ii.  10.) 

It  is  impossible  that  the  faith  which  this  sacrament  demands 
should  exist  in  the  heart,  without  producing  supreme  love  and 
gratitude  to  Christ,  and  the  fixed  purpose  to  forsake  all  sin  and 
to  live  devoted  to  his  service.  Our  Church,  therefore,  teaches 
that  it  is  required  of  them  who  would  worthily  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  that  they  examine  themselves,  of  their  knowledge 
to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  of  their  faith  to  feed  upon  Him,  of 
their  repentance,  love,  and  new  obedience. 

It  is,  however,  not  to  be  inferred  from  this  that  a  man  must  be 
assured  that  he  is  a  true  believer  before  he  can  properly  approach 
the  Lord's  table.  It  often  happens  that  those  who  are  most  con- 
fident that  they  are  Christians,  have  the  least  of  Christ's  Spirit. 
And  therefore  we  are  taught  in  the  Larger  Catechism,^  that 
"  One  who  doubteth  of  his  being  in  Christ,  or  of  his  due  prepara- 
tion to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  may  have  true  inter- 
est in  Christ,  though  he  be  not  assured  thereof  ;  and  in  God's 
account  hath  it,  if  he  be  duly  affected  with  the  apprehension  of 
the  want  of  it,  and  unfeignedly  desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and 
to  depart  from  iniquity  ;  in  which  case  (because  promises  are  made, 
and  this  sacrament  is  appointed,  for  the  relief  even  of  weak  and 
doubting  Christians)  he  is  to  bewail  his  unbehef,  and  labour  to 
have  his  doubts  resolved  ;  and  so  doing,  he  may  and  ought  to  come 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  he  may  be  further  strengthened." 

It  is  no  valid  objection  to  the  doctrine  that  faith,  love,  and  new 
obedience  are  the  qualifications  for  an  acceptable  approach  to  the 
Lord's  table,  that  under  the  Old  Testament  all  the  people  were 
allowed  to  partake  of  the  Passover.  This  only  shows  the  differ- 
ence between  what  God  demands,  and  what  fallible  men  are 
ttuthorized  to  enforce.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  was  required 
of  the  Jews  in  coming  to  the  paschal  supper  that  they  should 

1  Ques.  172. 


§  15.]         QUALIFICATIONS   FOR   THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.  625 

believe  the  fact  of  their  miraculous  deliverance  out  af  Egypt ; 
that  they  should  be  duly  grateful  to  God  for  that  great  mercy ; 
and  that  they  should  have  faith  in  the  promise  of  that  still 
greater  redemption  through  Him  of  whom  their  paschal  lamb  was 
the  divinely  appointed  type.  All  this  was  implied  in  an  intelli- 
gent and  sincere  attendance  on  the  Jewish  Passover.  The  priests, 
however,  were  not  authorized  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  sincerity 
of  the  worshippers,  and  to  exclude  all  whom  they  deemed  insin- 
cere. So  while  faith,  love,  and  the  purpose  of  new  obedience  are 
clearly  required  of  all  who  come  to  the  table  of  the  Loi'd,  all  that 
the  Church  can  demand  is  a  credible  profession ;  that  is,  a  profes- 
sion against  which  no  tangible  evidence  can  be  adduced.  Even  to 
acceptable  prayer,  faith  and  love  and  the  purpose  of  obedience 
are  demanded,  and  yet  we  cannot  exclude  from  access  to  God  all 
whom  we  do  not  deem  true  believers.  Confounding  the  Church 
and  the  world  is  a  great  evil,  but  the  Church  cannot  be  kept 
pure  by  any  human  devices.  Men  must  be  so  instructed  that 
they  will  be  kept  back  from  making  profession  of  a  faith  they  do 
not  possess,  by  their  own  consciences ;  and  those  who  act  un- 
worthily of  their  Christian  profession  should  be  subjected  to  the 
discipline  of  the  Church.  Further  than  this  the  Bible  does  not 
authorize  us  to  go,  and  all  attempts  to  improve  upon  the  Bible 
must  be  productive  of  evil.  According  to  our  Directory  for  Wor- 
ship, the  minister  "is  to  warn  the  profane,  the  ignorant,  and 
scandalous,  and  those  that  secretly  indulge  themselves  in  any 
known  sin,  not  to  approach  the  holy  table."  To  these  classes  his 
power  of  exclusion  is  confined.  "  On  the  other  hand,  he  shall  in- 
vite to  this  holy  table,  such  as,  sensible  of  their  lost  and  helpless 
state  of  sin,  depend  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ  for  pardon  and 
acceptance  with  God ;  such  as,  being  instructed  in  the  Gospel 
doctrine,  have  a  competent  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body, 
and  such  as  desire  to  renounce  their  sins,  and  are  determined  to 
lead  a  holy  and  godly  life."  ^ 

Although  all  chiirches  substantially  agree  as  to  the  nature  and 
design  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  far  as  the  general  statements  above 
given  are  concerned,  they  differ  essentially  in  their  explanations 
of  those  statements  ;  just  as  all  profess  to  receive  what  the  Scrip- 
tures say  of  this  ordinance,  while  they  differ  so  widely  as  to  what 
the  Bible  really  teaches.  So  far  as  these  differences  of  views  con- 
cern the  qualifications  for  participating  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ; 
the  benefits  the  ordinance  is  intended  to  convey  ;  and  the  nature 

1  Westininster  Directory,  chap.  viii.  p.  4. 
VOL.  III.  40 


026       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

of  tlie  efficacy  attributed  to  it,  they  have  been  ah-eacly  sufiBciently 
considered  wlien  teaching  of  the  sacraments  in  generaL  There 
are,  however,  certain  points  in  reference  to  this  sacrament  in  par- 
ticular, whicli  are  so  important  that  tliey  have  determined  the 
course  of  ecclesiasticid  history.  Those  points  are  all  intimately 
related.  (1.)  In  what  sense  are  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  eu- 
charist  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  (2.)  In  what  sense  are  his 
body  and  blood  received  in  that  ordinance  by  the  communicant. 
(3.)  In  what  sense  is  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  These  points 
are  so  related  that  they  cannot  well  be  considered  separately. 
These  are  the  points  as  to  which  the  Reformed,  the  Lutheran, 
and  the  Roman  Churches  are  opposed  to  each  other. 

§  16.  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  is  a  very  difficult  matter  to  give  an  account  of  the  Re- 
formed doctrine  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  satisfactory  to  all 
parties.  This  difficulty  arises  partly  from  the  fact  that  words 
have  changed  their  meaning  since  the  days  of  the  Reformation. 
The  Reformed  as  well  as  Lutherans  asserted  that  there  is  "a  real 
presence"  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  that  the  believer 
receives  the  true  body  and  blood,  or  the  substance  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  Such  expressions  would  be  understood  in  our  day 
very  differently  from  what  they  were  then.  Another  source  of  dif- 
ficulty on  this  subject  is  that  the  statements  of  the  Reformed  had 
for  one  great  object  the  prevention  of  a  schism  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Protestants.  They  did  all  they  could  to  conciliate  Luther.  They 
adopted  forms  of  expression  which  could  be  understood  in  a 
Lutheran  sense.  So  far  was  this  irenical  spirit  carried  that  even 
Romanists  asked  nothing  more  than  what  tlie  Reformed  conceded. 
Still  another  difficulty  is  that  the  Reformed  were  not  agreed 
among  themselves.  There  were  three  distinct  tjq^es  of  doctrine 
among  them,  the  Zwingiian,  the  Calvinistic,  and  an  intermediate 
form,  which  ultimately  became  symbolical,  being  adopted  in  the 
authoritative  standards  of  the  Church. 

Zwingiian  Statements. 

It  was  the  tendency  of  the  Zwingiian  element  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  to  make  less  of  the  supernatural  aspect  of  the  sacraments 
than  their  associates  did.  There  was,  however,  no  essential  differ- 
ence, as  afterwards  appeared  between  the  Churches  of  Zurich  and 
those  of  Geneva.  Zwingle  taught  that  ^  The  Lord's  Supper  is 
nothing  else  than  the  food  of  the  soul,  and  Christ  instituted  the 


§  16.]     THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     THE    REFORMED   CHURCH.     G27 

ordinance  as  a  memorial  of  Himself.  When  a  man  commits  liim- 
self  to  tlie  sufferings  and  redemption  of  Christ  he  is  saved.  Of 
this  He  has  left  us  a  certain  visible  sign  of  his  flesh  and  blood, 
both  of  which  He  has  commanded  us  to  eat  and  drink  in  remem- 
brance of  Him."  This  is  said  in  a  document  presented  to  the 
council  of  Zurich  in  1523. 

In  his  "  Expositio  Christiange  Fidei,"  written  just  before  his 
death,  and  published  by  Bullinger  in  1536,  he  says :  "  The 
natural  substantial  body  of  Christ  in  which  He  suffered,  and  in 
which  He  is  now  seated  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  is 
not  in  the  Lord's  Supper  eaten  corporeally,  or  as  to  its  essence, 

but   spiritually  only Spiritually  to   eat  Christ's  body  is 

nothing  else  than  with  the  spirit  and  mind  to  rely  on  the  good- 
ness and  mercy  of  God  through  Christ Sacramentally  to 

eat  his  body,  is,  the  sacrament  being  added,  with  the  mind  and 
spirit  to  feed  upon  Him."^ 

The  Confessions  most  nearly  conformed  to  the  views  of  Zwingle 
are  the  "  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,"  the  "  First  Basil,"  and  the 
"  First  Helvetic."  These  are  all  apologetic.  The  last  mentioned 
protests  against  the  representation  tliat  the  Reformed  regard  the 
sacraments  as  mere  badges  of  profession,  and  asserts  that  they  are 
signs  and  means.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  called  "  coena  mystica  " 
"  in  which  Christ  truly  offers  his  body  and  blood,  and  hence  Him- 
self, to  his  people  ;  not  as  though  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
were  naturally  united  with  the  bread  and  wine,  locally  included 
in  them,  or  sensibly  there  present,  but  in  so  far  as  the  bread  and 
wine  a.re  symbols,  through  which  we  have  communion  in  his  body 
and  blood,  not  to  the  nourishment  of  the  body,  but  of  the  spiritual 
or  eternal  life."  ^ 

In  "The  Sincere  Confession  of  the  Ministers  of  the  Church  of 
Zurich,"  dated  1545,  we  find  the  following  precise  statement  of 
their  doctrine  :  "  We  teach  that  the  great  design  and  end  of  the 

1  "  In  coena  domini  naturale  ac  substantiale  istud  corpus  Christi,  quo  et  hie  passus  est  et 
nunc  in  coelis  ad  dexteram  patris  sedet,  non  naturaliter  attiue   per  essentiam  editur,  sed 

spiritualiter  tantum Spiritualiter  edere,  corpus  Christi,  nihil  est  aliud  quam  spiritu 

ac  mente  niti  misw-icorilia  et  bonitate  Dei  per  Christum Sacranientaliter  edere  corpus 

Christi,  cum  proprie  volumus  loqui,  est,  adjuncto  sacramento,  mente  ac  spiritu  corpus 
Christi  edere."     Niemeyer,  Cullectio  Confiissionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  pp.  4-4,  47. 

'^  "  Coenam  niysticam,  in  qua  doniinus  corpus  et  sanguinem  suum,  id  e.st,  seipsum  suis 
vere  ad  hoc  offerat,  ut  magis,  magisque  in  illis  vivat,  et  illi  in  ipso.  Non  quod  pani  et  vino 
corpus  et  sanguis  domini  vel  naturaliter  uniantur:  vel  hie  localiter  includantur,  vel  uila  hue 
carnali  praesentia,  statuantur.  Sed  quod  panis  et  vinum  ex  institutione  domini  synibola 
sint,  quibus  ab  ipso  domino  per  ecclesiffi  ministerium  vera  corporis  et  sanguinis  ejus  com- 
munii'atio,  non  in  periturum  ventris  cibum,  sed  in  a;ternffi  vitae  alimoniam  exhibeatur." 
Art.  xxii.;  Niemeyer,  pp.  120,  121. 


628  PART  ni.     Ch.   XX.  -  THE  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

Lord's  Suppei',  that  to  which  the  whole  service  is  directed,  is  the 
remembrance  of  Christ's  body  devoted,  and  oi  his  blood  shed  for 
the  remission  of  our  sins.  This  remembrance,  however,  cannot 
take  place  without  true  faith.  And  although  the  things  of  which 
the  service  is  a  memorial,  are  not  visible  or  present  after  a  visible 
or  corporal  manner,  nevertheless  believing  apprehension  and  the 
assurance  of  faith  renders  them  present  in  one  sense  to  the  soul 
of  the  believer.  He  has  truly  eaten  the  bread  of  Clu-ist  .... 
■who  believes  on  Christ,  .very  God  and  very  man,  crucified  for  us, 
on  whom  to  believe  is  to  eat,  and  to  eat  is  to  beheve Be- 
lievers have  in  the  Lord's  Supper  no  other  hfe-giving  food  than 
that  which  they  receive  elsewhere  than  in  that  ordinance.  The 
believer,  therefore,  receives  both  in  and  out  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
in  one  and  the  same  way,  and  by  the  same  means  of  faith,  one 
and  the  same  food,  Christ,  except  that  in  the  supper  the  reception 
is  connected  with  the  actions  and  signs  appointed  by  Christ,  and 
accompanied  with  a  testifying,  thanksgiving,  and  binding  service. 
....  Christ's  flesh  has  done  its  work  on  earth,  having  been  offered 
for  our  salvation ;  now  it  no  longer  benefits  on  earth  and  is  no 
longer  here." 

Cdlvhi's  Doctrine. 

While  Calvin  denied  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  eucharist,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  presence 
was  asserted  by  Romanists  and  Lutherans,  yet  he  affirmed  that 
they  were  dynamically  present.  The  sun  is  in  the  heavens,  but 
his  light  and  heat  are  present  on  earth.  So  the  body  of  Christ 
is  in  heaven,  but  from  that  glorified  body  there  radiates  an  influ- 
ence, other  than  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  (although  through  his 
agency),  of  which  believers  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  recipients. 
In  this  way  they  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  or,  their 
substance,  or  life-giving  power.  He  held,  therefore,  that  there 
was  something  not  only  supernatural,  but  truly  miraculous,  in  this 
divine  ordinance. 

He  says  : '    "  We  conclude  that  our  souls  are  fed  by  the  flesli  and 

1  Institufio  IV.  xvii.  10;  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  part  ii.  p.  407.  "  Summa  sit,  non  aliter 
animas  nostras  carne  et  sanguine  Christi  pasci,  quam  panis  et  vinum  corporaleni  vitSm 
tuentur  et  sustinent.  Neque  enim  aliter  quadraret  analogia  signi,  nisi  alinieiitum  suum 
animm  in  Christo  reperirent:  quod  fieri  non  potest,  nisi  nobiscum  Christus  vore  in  unum 
coaleseat  nosque  reticiat  carnis  sua;  esu  et  sanguinis  potu.  Ktsi  aiitein  iiieredil)ile  videtur, 
iu  tanta  locorum  distantia  pcnetrare  ad  nos  Cliristi  carnem,  ut  nobis  sit  in  eibum,  niem- 
inerinius,  quantum  supra  sensus  omnes  nostros  emineat  arcana  Spiritus  sancti  virtus  et 
quam  stultnni  sit,  ejus  imniensitateni  niodo  n  stro  velle  nietiri.  Quod  ergo  mens  nostra  non 
comprehend  it,  concipiat  tides,  Spiritum  vere  unire,  quic  locis  disjuncta  sunt.  Jam  sacram 
Ulam  carnis  et  sanguinis  sui  comniuiiicationem,  qua  vitam  suani  in  nos  transf  undit  Christus, 


i 


§  16.]    THE  LORD'S   SUPPER.    THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.     629 

blood  of  Christ,  just  as  our  corporal  life  is  preserved  by  bread 
and  wine.  For  the  analogy  of  the  signs  would  not  hold,  if  our 
souls  did  not  find  their  aliment  in  Christ,  which,  however,  cannot 
be  the  case,  unless  Christ  truly  coalesce  into  one  with  us,  and 
support  us  through  the  use  of  his  flesh  and  blood.  It  may  seem 
incredible  indeed  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  should  reach  us  from 
such  an  immense  local  distance,  so  as  to  become  our  food.  But 
we  must  remember  how  far  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  trans- 
cends all  our  senses,  and  what  folly  it  must  be  even  to  think  of 
I  educing  his  immensity  to  our  measure.  Let  faith  then  embrace 
what  the  understanding  cannot  grasp,  namely,  that  the  spirit 
truly  unites  things  which  are  totally  separated.  Now  this  sacred 
communication  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  by  which  Christ  transfuses 
his  life  into  us,  just  as  if  He  penetrated  our  bones  and  marrow, 
He  testifies  and  seals  in  the  holy  supper ;  not  by  the  exhibition  of 
a  vain  and  empty  sign,  but  by  putting  forth  such  an  energy  of 
his  Spirit  as  fulfils  what  He  promises." 

In  1561  Calvin  wrote  in  answer  to  the  Lutheran  Hesshuss,  and 
with  an  irenical  purpose,  his  tract  "  De  participatione  carnis  et 
sanguinis  Christi  in  sacra  coena."  In  an  appendix  to  that  Tract, 
he  says,  "  The  same  body  then  which  the  Son  of  God  once  offered 
in  sacrifice  to  the  Father,  he  daily  offers  to  us  in  the  supper,  that 
it  may  be  our  spiritual  aliment.  Only  that  must  be  held  which 
was  intimated  as  to  the  mode,  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
essence  of  the  flesh  should  descend  from  heaven  in  order  that  we 
may  feed  upon  it ;  but  that  the  power  of  the  Spirit  is  sufficient  to 
penetrate  through  all  impediments  and  to  surmount  all  local  dis- 
tance. At  the  same  time  we  do  not  deny  that  the  mode  here  is 
incomprehensible  to  human  thought ;  for  flesh  naturally  could 
neither  be  the  life  of  the  soul,  nor  exert  its  power  upon  us  from 
heaven  ;  and  not  without  reason  is  the  communication,  which 
makes  us  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bones,  denominated  by 
Paul  a  great  mystery.  In  the  sacred  supper  we  acknowledge  it  a 
miracle,  transcending  both  nature  and  our  vmderstanding,  that 
Christ's  life  is  made  common  to  us  with  Himself,  and  his  flesh 
given  to  us  as  aliment."  ^ 

Again,  ''  These  things  being  disposed  of,  a  doubt  still  appears 
with  respect  to  the  word  '  substance  ' ;  which  is  readily  allayed  if 
we  put  away  the  gross  imagination  of  a  manducation  of  the  flesh, 

r.rn  secus  acsi  in  ossa  et  medullas  penetraret,  in  coena  etiam  testatur  et  obsignat;  et  quidem 
non  objeeto  inani  aut  vacuo  signo,  sed  efficaciam  Spiritus  ?ui  illic  proferens,  qua  impleat, 
quod  proniittit." 
1   Works,  Amsterdam,  16  7;  vol.  viii.  p.  744,  a.  b. 


630  PART  III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEAXS    OF    GRACE. 

as  though  it  were  corporal  food,  that,  being  taken  into  the  mouth, 
is  received  into  the  stomach.  For  if  this  absurdity  be  removed, 
there  no  reason  why  we  should  deny  that  we  are  fed  with  Christ's 
flesh  substantially,  since  we  truly  coalesce  with  Him  in  one  body 
by  faith,  and  are  made  one  with  Him.  Whence  it  follows  that 
we  are  joined  with  Him  in  substantial  connection,  just  as  sub- 
stantial vigour  flows  down  from  the  head  into  the  members.  The 
definition  there  must  stand  that  we  are  made  to  partake  oi 
Christ's  flesh  substantially ;  not  in  the  way  of  carnal  mixture,  or 
as  if  the  flesh  of  Christ  drawn  down  from  heaven  entered  into  us, 
or  were  swallowed  by  the  mouth  ;  but  because  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
as  to  its  power  and  efficacy,  vivifies  our  souls,  not  otherwise  than 
the  body  is  nourished  by  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine."  ^ 

The  Reformed  symbols  which  most  nearly  conform  to  the  pecul- 
iar views  of  Calvin  are  the  Galilean,  the  Belgian,  and  tlie  early 
Scottish.  The  first  mentioned  teaches  ^  "  Quamvis  [Christus] 
nunc  sit  in  coelis,  ibidem  etiam  mansurus  donee  veniat  mundum 
judicaturus :  credimus  tamen,  eum  arcana  et  incomprehensibili 
Spiritus  sui  virtute  per  fidem  apprehensa,  nos  nutrire  et  vivificare 
sui  corporis  et  sanguinis  substantia.  Dicimur  autem  hoc  spiritu- 
aliter  fieri,  non  ut  eificaciae  et  veritatis  loco  imaginationem  aut 
cogitationem  supponamus,  sed  potius,  quoniam  hoc  mysterium  nos- 
trae  cum  Christo  coalitionis  tam  sublime  est,  ut  omnes  nostros  sen- 
sus  totumque  adeo  ordinem  nature  superet :  denique  quoniam  sit 
divinum  ac  coeleste,  non  nisi  fide  percipi  ac  apprehendi  potest." 

"  Credimus,  sicut  antea  dictum  est,  tam  in  coena  quam  in  baptis- 
mo,  Deum  nobis  reipsa,  id  est,  vere  et  efficaciter  donare  quicquid 
ibi  sacramentaliter  figurat,  ac  proinde  cum  signis  conjungimus 
veram  possessionem  ac  fruitionem  ejus  rei,  quae  ita  nobis  offertur. 
Itaque  affirmamus  eos  qui  ad  sacram  mensam  Domini  puram  fidem 
tanquam  vas  quoddam  afferunt,  vere  recipere  .quod  ibi  signa  testi- 

1  At  the  meeting  of  the  national  Synod  of  France  in  1571,  Beza  being  president,  an  ap- 
plication was  made  by  certain  deputies  to  have  the  clause  in  Article  37  of  tiie  Confession 
altered,  which  asserts  that  we  are  nourished  with  "  tiie  substance  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood."  The  Synod  refused  to  malce  the  alteration,  and  explained  the  expression  by  say- 
ing they  did  not  understand  by  it,  "  any  confusion,  commixture,  or  conjunction,  ....  but 
this  only,  that  by  his  virtue  all  that  is  in  llim  tiiat  is  needful  to  our  salvation,  is  hereby 
most  freely  given  and  communicated  to  us.  Nor  do  we  agree  with  lh<ise  who  say  we  com- 
municate in  ids  merits  and  gifts  and  Spirit,  without  his  being  made  ours;  but  with  the 
Apostle  (Eph.  V.  23),  admiring  this  supernatural,  and  to  us,  incomprehensible,  mystery,  we 
believe  we  are  partakers  of  his  body  delivered  to  death  for  us,  and  of  his  blood  shed  for  us, 
so  that  we  are  flesh  of  iiis  flesh  and  bone  of  his  bones,  and  that  we  receive  Him  together 
witii  his  gifts  by  faith,  wrought  in  us  by  the  incomprehensible  virtue  and  efficacy  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."     This  decision  offended  the  Zurich  ministers. 

*  Art.  xxx\i.  xxxvii. ;  Niemeyer,  p.  338. 


S  16.]     THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     THE    REFORMED    CHURCH.     631 

ficantur,  nempe  corpus  et  sanguinem  Jesu  Christi,  non  minus  esse 
cibuiu  ac  potum  aniin;y,  quani  panis  et  vinum  sunt  corporis  cibus.'' 

In  the  Scotch  Confession  of  1560,  it  is  said,  "  We  confess  that 
believers  in  the  right  use  of  the  Lord's  Supper  thus  eat  the  body 
and  drink  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  we  firmly  believe  that  He 
dwells  in  them,  and  tliey  in  Him,  nay,  that  they  thus  become 
flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone  of  his  bones.  For  as  the  eternal  Deity 
gives  life  and  immortality  to  the  flesh  of  Christ,  so  also  his  flesh 
and  blood,  when  eaten  and  drunk  by  us,  confer  on  us  the  same 
prerogatives."  ^ 

In  the  Belgic  Confession  adopted  in  1563,  it  is  said,  "  Ut  iis  no- 
bis [Christus]  testificatur,  quam  vere  accipimus  et  tenemus  mani- 
bus  nostris  hoc  sacramentum,  illudque  ore  comedimus  (unde  et 
postmodum  vita  hasc  nostra  sustentatur),  tarn  vere  etiam  nos  fide 
(quffi  animse  nostra  est  instar  et  manus  et  oris)  recipere  verum 
corpus    et  verum  sanguinem  Christi,  in  animis  nostris,  ad   vitam 

spiritualem    in   nobis  fovendam Dicimus  itaque  id  quod 

comeditur  esse  ipsissimum  Christi  corpus  naturale,  et  id  quod 
bibitur  verum  ijDsius  sanguinem :  at  instrumentum  seu  medium 
quo  haec  comedimus  et  bibimus  non  est  os  corporeum,  sed  spiritua 
ipse  noster,  idque  per  fidem."  ^ 

Confessions  in  which  Zivinglians  and  Calvinists  agree. 

The  most  important  of  these,  as  already  mentioned,  is  the 
"  Consensus  Tigurinus,"  because  drawn  up  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  settling  the  disputes  between  the  two  parties,  and  because 
it  was  adopted  by  both.  It  was  written  by  Calvin  and  published 
under  the  title  "  Consensio  mutua  in  re  Sacramentaria  Ministro- 
rum  Tigurinse  Ecclesiae,  et  D.  Joannis  Calvini  Ministri  Geneven- 
sis  Ecclesise,  jam  nunc  ab  ipsis  authoribus  edita."  This  "  Consen- 
sus "  was  vehemently  attacked  by  the  Lutherans  ;  and  Calvin, 
four  years  after  its  publication,  felt  called  upon  to  publish  an  ex- 
planation and  defence  of  it.  In  his  letter  prefixed  to  that  defence 
and  addressed  to  the  ministers  of  Zurich  and  other  Swiss  churches, 
he  says :  The  Lutherans  now  see  that  those  whom  they  de- 
nounced as  Sacramentarians  agree,  and  then  adds  :  "  Nee  vero  si 
superstites  hodie  essent  optimi  et  eximii  Christi  servi  Zwinglius 
et  Oecolampadius,  verbuluni  in  ea  sententia  mutarent."^  No 
document,  therefore,  can  have  a  higher  claim  to  represent  the  true 

1  Art.  xxi. ;  Niemeyer,  p.  .3.52.  2  Art.  xxxv. ;  Ilnd.  pp.  385,  386. 

"^  See  his  Letter  to  the  Swiss  Churches  prefixed  to  his  Consensionis  Capitiun  Exporitio; 
Niemeyer,  ut  supra,  p.  201. 


/ 


632  PART   m.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Cliurcli  than  this  "  Consensus."  This 
document  has  ah'eady  been  quoted  on  a  previous  page  to  prove 
A  that  its  authors,  (1.)  Did  not  regard  tlie  sacraments  as  mere  signs, 
'  or  as  simply  badges  of  a  Christian  profession.  (2.)  But  as  means 
of  grace,  appointed,  not  only  to  signify  and  seal,  but  also  to  con- 
vey the  benefits  of  redemption.  (3.)  That  their  saving  and  sancti- 
fying efficacy  is  not  due  to  any  virtue  in  them  or  in  him  that  doth 
administer  them,  but  solely  to  the  blessing  of  God  and  the  work- 
ing of  his  Spirit.  (4.)  That  the  sacraments  are  not  means  of  grace 
to  all  indiscriminately,  or  to  all  who  are  their  passive  recipients, 
but  only  to  believers  or  the  chosen  people  of  God.  (5.)  That  their 
efficacy  is  not  tied  to  the  time  of  their  administration.  (6.)  That 
the  grace  or  saving  gifts  which  the  sacraments,  when  God  so 
wills,  are  made  the  channels  of  communicating,  may  be,  and  in  fact 
are,  received  before  and  without  their  use. 

The  last  seven  articles  of  the  "  Consensus"  concern  the  Lord's 
Supper.  In  the  twenty-first  the  local  presence  of  Christ  in  that 
sacrament  is  denied.  "  Prassertim  vero  tollenda  est  quaelibet  lo- 
calis  prjesentiaj  imaginatio.  Nam  quum  signa  hie  in  mundo  sint, 
oculis  cernuntur,  palpentur  manibus :  Christus  quatenus  homo 
est,  non  alibi  quam  in  coelo,  nee  aliter  quam  mente  et  fidei  intel- 
ligentia  quterendus  est.  Quare  perversa  et  impia  superstitio  est, 
ipsum  sub  dementis  hujus  mundi  includere." 

The  twenty-second  article  teaches  that  the  words,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  in  the  form  of  institution,  are  to  be  understood  figura- 
tively. "  Proinde,  qui  in  solennibus  Coense  verbis,  Hoc  est  corpus 
meum,  Hie  est  sanguis  mens :  pniecise  literalem,  ut  loquuntur,  sen- 
sum  urgent,  eos  tanquam  jDn^posteros  interpretes  repudiaraus. 
Nam  extra  controversiam  ponimus,  figurate  accipienda  esse,  ut  esse 
panis  et  vinum  dicantur  id  quod  significant.  Neque  vero  novum 
hoc  aut  insolens  videri  debet,  ut  per  metonymiam  ad  signum 
transferatur  rei  figuratte  nomen,  quum  passim  in  Scripturis  ejus- 
modi  locutiones  occurrant :  et  nos  sic  loquendo  nihil  asserimus, 
quod  non  apud  vetustissimos  quosque  et  probatissimos  Ecclesi* 
Bcriptores  extet." 

Article  twenty-third  relates  to  spiritual  manducation.  "  Quod 
autem  carnis  susb  esu  et  sanguinis  potione,  qnx  hie  figurantur, 
Christus  animas  nostras  per  fidem  Spiritus  sancti  virtute  pascit,  id 
non  perinde  accipiendum,  quasi  fiat  aliqua  substantise  vel  commix- 
tio  vel  transfusio  :  sed  quoniam  ex  carne  semel  in  sacrificium  oblata 
et  sanguine  in  expiatione  effuso  vitam  hauriamus." 

Article  twenty -fourth  is  directed  against  transubstantiation  and 


§  16.]     THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     THE   REFORMED   CHURCH.     Gi^b 

other  errors.  "  Hoc  modo  non  tantum  refutatur  Papistanim 
comnientuni  de  transubstantione,  sed  crassa  omnia  fignienta 
atque  futiles  arguti»,  qiue  vel  coelesti  ejus  glorias  detraliuiit  vel 
veritati  liumaiiK  nature  minus  sunt  consentanese.  Neque  enim. 
minus  absurdum  judicamus,  Christi>jr  sub  pane  locare  vel  cum  pane 
copulare,  quam  panem  transubstantiare  in  corpus  ejus." 

Article  twenty-fifth  teaches  that  Christ's  body  is  locally  in 
heaven.  "  Ac  ne  qua  ambiguitas  restet,  quum  in  coelo  quieren- 
dum  Christum  dicimus,  Iijec  locutio  locorum  distantiam  nobis 
sonat  et  exprimit.  Tametsi  enim  philosophice  loquendo  supra 
coelos  locus  non  est ;  quia  tamen  corpus  Christi,  ut  fert  humani 
corporis  natura  et  modus,  finitum  est  et  coelo,  ut  loco,  continetur, 
necesse  est  a  nobis  tanto  locorum  intervallo  distare,  quanto  coelum 
abest  a  terra." 

Article  twenty-sixth,  the  last  of  the  series,  is  directed  against 
the  adoration  of  the  host,  or  consecrated  wafer.^ 

The  Heidelberg  Catochism  was  prepared  at  the  command  of 
Frederick  IH.,  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  by  Caspar  Olevian,  a 
disciple  of  Calvin,  and  by  Ursinus,  a  friend  of  Melancthon,  and 
adopted  by  a  General  Synod  held  at  Heidelberg  in  1563.  This 
Catechism,  having  symbolical  authority  both  in  the  German  and 
in  the  Dutch  Reformed  Churches,  is  entitled  to  special  respect  as 
a  witness  to  the  faith  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

The  sacraments  are  declared  to  be  "  Sacred,  visible  signs,  and 
seals,  instituted  by  God,  that  through  them  He  may  more  clearly 
present  and  seal  the  promise  of  the  gospel,  namely,  that  He,  for 
the  sake  of  the  one  offering  of  Christ  accomplished  on  the  cross, 
giants  not  to  all  only  but  even  to  separate  believers  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  and  eternal  life." 

"  How  art  thou  reminded  and  assured,  in  the  Holy  Supper,  that 
thou  art  a  partaker  of  the  one  offering  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  and 
of  all  his  benefits  ?  " 

"  Thus,  that  Christ  has  commanded  me  and  all  believers,  to 
eat  this  broken  bread,  and  to  drink  this  cup  in  remembrance 
of  Him ;  adding  these  promises :  that  his  body  was  offered  and 
broken  on  the  cross  for  me,  and  his  blood  shed  for  me,  as  cer- 
tainly as  I  see  with  my  eyes  the  bread  of  the  Lord  broken  for  me, 
and  the  cup  communicated  to  me :  and  further,  that  He  feeds 
and  nourishes  my  soul  to  everlasting  life,  with  his  crucified  body 
and  shed  blood,  as  assuredly  as  I  receive  from  the  hands  of  the 
minister,  and  take  with  my  mouth,  the  bread  and  cup,  as  certain 
signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 

1  Niemeyer,  Cullectlo  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  196. 


634         PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means    OF   GRACE. 

"  What  is  it  then  to  eat  the  crucified  body,  and  drink  the  shed 
blood  of  Christ?" 

"  It  is  not  only  to  embrace  with  a  believing  heart  all  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ,  and  thereby  to  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin 
and  eternal  life  ;  but  also,  besides  that,  to  become  more  and  more 
united  to  his  sacred  body  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  at  once 
both  in  Christ  and  in  us ;  so  that  we,  though  Christ  is  in  heaven, 
an  I  we  on  earth,  are  notwithstanding,  flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone 
of  his  bone;  and  we  live  and  are  governed  forever  by  one  Spirit, 
as  the  members  of  the  same  body  are  by  one  soul." 

"  Do  then  the  bread  and  wine  become  the  very  body  and  blood 
of  Christ?" 

"  Not  at  all :  but  as  the  water  in  baptism  is  not  changed  into  the 
blood  of  Christ,  neither  is  the  washing  away  of  sin  itself,  being 
only  the  sign  and  pledge  of  the  things  sealed  to  us  in  baptism ; 
80  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  changed  into  the  very 
body  of  Christ ;  though  agreeably  to  the  nature  and  properties 
of  sacraments,  it  is  called  the  body  of  Christ  Jesus."  ^ 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  was 
revised  by  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  1618  and  1619.  In  the  thirty- 
fifth  article  of  that  Confession,  it  is  said  that  as  man  has  a  natu- 
ral life  common  to  all  men,  so  believers  have  besides,  a  spiritual 
life  given  in  their  regeneration ;  and  as  God  has  provided  food  for 
our  natural  life.  He  has  in  hke  manner  provided  food  for  our 
spiritual  life.  That  food  is  Christ,  who  is  the  true  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven  ;  "  who  nourishes  and  strengthens  the 
spiritual  life  of  believers,  when  they  eat  Him,  that  is  to  say,  when 
they  apply  and  receive  Him  by  faith  in  the  Spirit."  As  we  re- 
ceive the  bread  and  wine  by  the  mouth  "we  also  do  as  certainly 
receive  by  faith  (which  is  the  hand  and  mouth  of  our  soul)  the 
true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  our  only  Saviour  in  our  souls  for 
the  support  of  our  spiritual  life."  The  manner  of  this  reception 
is  hidden  and  incomprehensible.  "  In  the  mean  time  we  err  not, 
when  we  say,  that  what  is  eaten  and  drunk  by  us  is  the  proper 
and  natural  body,  and  the  proper  blood  of  Christ.  But  the  man- 
ner of  our  partaking  of  the  same,  is  not  by  the  mouth,  but  by  the 
Spirit  through  faith." 

The  Second  Helvetic  Confession  is,  on  some  accounts,  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  most  authoritative  symbol  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
as  it  was  more  generally  received  than  any  other,  and  was  sanc- 
tioned by  different  parties.      It  was  drawn  up  by  Bullinger  in 

1  Ques.  Ixvi.  Ixxv.  Ixxvi.  Ixxviii.;  Niemeyer,  pp.  444-447. 


§16.]     THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     THE   REFORMED   CHURCH.     635 

1562.  In  156r),  the  Elector  Frederick,  distressed  at  tlie  conten- 
tions respecting  the  sacraments  which  agitated  the  Church,  wrote 
to  Bulhnger  to  send  him  a  confession  which  might  if  possible 
unite  the  conflicting  parties,  or,  at  least  meet  the  objections  of 
the  Lutherans.  Bulhnger  sent  him  this  Confession  which  he  had 
prepared  some  years  before  ;  with  which  the  Elector  was  perfectly 
satisfied.  To  give  it  the  greater  authority  it  was  adopted  by  the 
Helvetic  churches.  As  it  was  drawn  up  by  Bulhnger  the  succes- 
sor of  Zwingle  at  Zurich,  it  cannot  be  supposed  to  contain  any- 
thing to  which  a  Zwinghan  could  object.  The  nineteenth  chap- 
ter treats  of  the  sacraments  in  general,  and  teaches,  (1.)  That 
they  are  mystic  symbols,  or  holy  rites,  or  sacred  actions,  includ- 
ing the  word,  signs,  and  thing  signified.  (2.)  That  there  were 
sacraments  under  the  old,  as  well  as  under  the  new  economy. 
(3.)  That  God  is  their  author,  and  operates  through  them. 
(4.)  That  Christ  is  the  great  object  presented  in  them,  the  sub- 
stance and  matter  of  them,  the  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  the  rock  from  which  all  the  fathers  drank,  etc. 
(5.)  Therefore,  as  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned,  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  two  dispensations  are  equal ;  they  have  the  same 
author,  the  same  significancy,  and  the  same  effects.  (6.)  The  old 
have  been  abolished,  and  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  mtro- 
duced  in  their  place.  (7.)  Then  follows  an  exposition  of  the 
constituent  parts  of  a  sacrament.  First,  the  word,  by  which  the 
elements  are  constituted  sacred  signs.  Water,  bread,  and  wine,  are 
not  in  themselves,  apart  from  the  divine  appointment,  sacred  sym- 
bols ;  it  is  the  word  of  God  added  to  them,  consecrating,  or  setting 
them  apart,  which  gives  them  their  sacramental  character.  Sec- 
ondly, the  signs,  being  thus  consecrated,  receive  the  names  of  the 
things  signified.  Water  is  called  regeneration  ;  the  bread  and  wine 
are  called  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  They  are  not  changed 
in  their  own  nature.  They  are  called  by  the  names  of  the  things 
signified,  because  the  two  are  sacramentally  united,  that  is,  united 
by  mystical  significance  and  divine  appointment.  (8.)  In  the 
next  paragraph,  this  Confession  rejects,  on  the  one  hand  the  Ro- 
mish doctrine  of  consecration,  and  on  the  other,  the  idea  that  the 
sacraments  are  mere  empty  signs.  (9.)  The  benefits  signified 
are  not  so  included  in  the  sacraments  or  bound  to  them>  that  all 
who  receive  the  signs  receive  the  things  Avhich  they  signify  ;  nor 
does  their  efficacy  depend  on  the  administrator ;  nor  their  integ- 
rity upon  the  receiver.  As  the  Word  of  God  continues  his  Word, 
whether  men  believe  or  not ;  so  is  it  with  the  sacraments. 


636  PART   III.     Cii.   XX. —  THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

The  twenty-first  chapter  is  devoted  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  It 
contains  the  following  passages  :  "  Ut  autem  rectius  et  perspicacius 
intelligatur,  qnomodo  caro  et  sanguis  Christi  sint  cibus  et  potus 
fidelium,  pereipianturque  a  fidelibus  ad  vitam  icternam,  paucula 
hgec  adjiciemus.  Manducatio  non  est  unius  generis.  Est  enim 
manducatio  corporalis,  qua  cibus  in  os  percipitur  ab  homine,  den- 

tibus  atteritur,  et  in  ventrem    deglutitur Est  et  si^iritu- 

alis  manducatio  corporis  Christi,  non  ea  quidem,  qua  existimemus 
cibum  ipsum  niutari  in  spiritum,  sed  qua,  manente  in  sua  essen- 
tia et  proprietate  corpore  et  sanguine  Domini,  ea  nobis  communi- 
cantur  spiritualiter,  utique  non  corporali  modo,  sed  spiritual!,  per 
Spiritum  Sanctum,  qui  videlicet  ea,  qu;T3  per  carnem  et  sanguinem 
Domini  pro  nobis  in  mortem  tradita,  parata  sunt,  ipsam  inquam 
remissionem  peccatorum,  liberationem,  et  vitam  aeternam,  appli- 
cat  et  confert  nobis,  ita  ut  Christus  in  nobis  vivat,  et  nos  in  ipso 
vivamus,  efficitque  ut  ipsum,  quo  talis  sit  cibus  et  potus  spiritu- 

alis  noster,  id  est,  vita  nostra,  vera  fide  percipiamus Et 

sicut  oportet  cibum  in  nosmetipsos  edendo  recipere,  ut  operetur 
in  nobis,  suamque  in  nobis  efBcaciam  exerat,  cum  extra  nos  posi- 
tus,  nihil  nobis  prosit :  ita  necesse  est  nos  fide  Christum  recipere, 

ut  noster  fiat,  vivatque  in  nobis,  et  nos  in  ipso Ex  quibus 

omnibus  claret  nos,  per  spiritualem  cibum,  minime  intelligere  im- 
aginarium,  nescio  quem,  cibum,  sed  ipsum  Domini  corpus  pro 
nobis  traditum,  quod  tamen  percipiatur  a  fidelibus,  non  corporal- 

iter,  sed    spiritualiter    per    fidem Fit  autem  hie  esus  et 

potus  spiritualis,  etiam  extra  Domini  coenam,  quoties,  aut  ubicun- 
que  homo  in  Christum  crediderit.  Quo  fortassis  illud  Augustini 
pertinet.  Quid  paras  dentem  et  ventrem  ?  crede,  et  manducasti." 

"  Prseter  superiorem  manducationem  spiritualem,  est  et  sacra- 
mentalis  manducatio  corporis  Domini,  qua  fidelis  non  tantum  spir- 
itualiter et  interne  participat  vero  corpore  et  sanguine  Domini, 
sed,  foris  etiam  accedendo  ad  mensam  Domini,  accipit  visibile  cor- 
poris et  sanguinis  Domini  sacramentum."  ^ 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  confessions  of  the  Church  of 
England  conform  more  nearly  to  the  Zwinglian  than  to  the  Cal- 
vinistic  ideas  and  phraseology  in  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
This  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  was  less  important 
for  Ihe  .English  than  for  the  German  churches  to  conciliate  the 
Lulh(n'ans.  In  the  articles  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  London  in 
1552,  and  approved  by  Edward  VI.,  the  first  clause  of  the  state- 
ment of  the   doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  in  the  language  of 

1  See  Niemeyer,  Colhctio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  pp.  512-521. 


§  16.]     THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     THE    REFORMEU   CHURCH.     637 

Scripture  :  "  To  those  who  receive  it  worthily  and  with  faith,  the 
bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ." 
The  second  clause  rejects  transubstantiation.  The  third  is  di- 
rected against  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  asserts  that  as  Christ  is 
in  heaven ;  "  non  debet  quisquam  fidelium  carnis  ejus  et  sanguinis 
realem  et  corporalem  (ut  loquuntur)  pnesentiam  in  eucharistia  vel 
credere  vel  profiteri." 

Article  twenty-eight  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  adopted  in 
1562,  contains  the  first  three  clauses  substantially  as  they  ap- 
peared  in  the  article  of  Edward  VI.,  and  then  adds  :  "  The  body 
of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  supper  only  after  a 
heavenly  and  spiritual  manner  ;  and  the  mean  whereby  the  body 
of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  supper,  is  faith.  The  sa- 
crament of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance  re- 
served, carried  about,  lifted  up,  and  worshipped."  In  the  early 
edition  of  these  articles,  the  clause  against  transubstantiation  was 
amplified  as  follows :  "  Forasmuch  as  the  truth  of  man's  nature 
requireth,  that  the  body  of  one  and  the  selfsame  man  cannot  be 
at  one  time  in  divers  places,  but  must  needs  be  in  one  certain 
place  ;  therefore  the  body  of  Christ  cannot  be  present  at  one  time 
in  many  and  divers  places  :  and  because  as  Holy  Scripture  doth 
teach,  Christ  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  there  shall  continue 
unto  the  end  of  the  world ;  a  faithful  man  ought  not  either  to  be- 
heve,  or  openly  confess  the  real  and  bodily  presence,  as  they  terra 
it,  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per." ^  All  this  is  imphed  in  the  form  in  which  the  article  now 
stands.  It  afliords  clear  evidence  what  were  the  sentiments  of  the 
Enghsh  Reformers  on  this  subject.  It  is  principally  interesting  as 
it  repudiates  the  idea  of  the  "  real  presence  "  of  the  flesh  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  sacrament ;  which  even  Zwingle  was  willing  to  al- 
low. He,  however,  used  the  word  "  real  "  in  a  very  different  sense 
from  that  in  which  it  is  used  by  either  Romanists  or  Lutherans. 

The  Sense  in  tvJiich  Christ  is  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  extracts  from  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Church  enable 
us  to  answer.  First,  the  question  in  what  sense  according  to  that 
Church,  Christ  is  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Reformed 
theologians  are  careful  to  explain  what  they  mean  by  the  word 
presence.  Anything  is  said  to  be  present  when  it  operates  duly  on 
our  perceiving  faculties.    A  sensible  object  is  present  (pr^e  sensi- 

1  See  Exposition  of  Thirty-nine  Articles  bv  Gilbert  [Burnet],  6th  edit.  Dublin,  1790,  p. 
403. 


638       PART  m.   ch.  XX. —  the  means  of  grace. 

bus)  when  it  affects  the  senses.  A  spiritual  object  is  present  when 
it  is  intellectually  apprehended  and  when  it  acts  upon  the  mind. 
It  is  said  of  the  wicked,  "  God  is  not  in  all  their  thoughts."  They 
are  without  God.  They  are  "  far  off."  On  the  other  hand,  God  is 
present  with  his  people  when  He  controls  their  thoughts,  operates 
on  their  hearts,  and  fills  them  with  the  sense  of  his  nearness  and 
love.  This  presence  is  not  imaginary,  it  is  in  the  highest  sense 
real  and  effective.  In  like  manner  Christ  is  present  when  He 
thus  fills  the  mind,  sheds  abroad  his  love  in  our  hearts  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  given  unto  us  ;  and  not  only  communicates  to  us  the 
benefits  of  his  sufferings  and  death,  that  is,  the  remission  of  our 
sins  and  rrjconciliation  with  God,  but  also  infuses  his  life  into  us. 
Nothing  is  plainer  from  Scripture  than  that  there  is  this  commu- 
nication of  life  from  Christ  to  his  people.  It  is  not  only  directly 
asserted  as  when  Paul  says,  "  I  hve  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me  "  (Gal.  ii.  20)  ;  and,  He  "  is  our  life  "  (Col.  iii.  4)  ;  but  it 
is  also  illustrated  in  every  way.  As  the  body  derives  life  from  the 
head  (Col.  ii.  19)  and  the  branches  from  the  vine,  so  do  behev- 
ers  derive  their  life  from  Him  :  on  this  point  there  is  no  dispute 
among  Christians.  This,  again,  is  a  presence  to  us  and  in  us  which 
is  not  imaginary,  but  in  the  highest  sense  real  and  effective. 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  word  Christ  when  He  is  said  to  be 
thus  present  with  us  ?  It  does  not  mean  merely  that  the  Logos, 
the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  fills  heaven  and  earth,  is  present  with 
us  as  He  is  with  all  his  creatures  ;  or,  simply  that  He  operates  in  us 
as  He  operates  throughout  the  universe.  Nor  does  it  mean  merely 
that  his  Spirit  dwells  in  believers  and  works  in  them  both  to  will 
and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.  Something  more  than  all  this  is 
meant.  Christ  is  a  person  ;  a  divine  person  with  a  human  nature  ; 
that  is  with  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul.  It  is  that  person 
who  is  present  with  us.  This  again  does  not  mean,  that  Christ's 
human  nature,  his  body  and  soul  are  ubiquitous ;  but  it  does  mean 
that  a  divine  person  with  human  affections  and  sympathies  is  near 
us  and  within  us.  We  have  now  a  high-priest  who  can  be  touched 
with  a  sense  of  our  infirmities.  (Heb.  iv.  15.)  He  and  we  are 
one  in  such  a  sense  that  He  is  not  ashamed  to  call  us  brethren. 
(Heb.  ii.  11.)  In  all  things  He  was  made  like  unto  his  brethren 
that  He  might  be  what  He  still  is,  a  merciful  and  faithful  high- 
priest.     (Heb.  ii.  17.)     Of  this  every  Christian  is  assured.^     The 

1  The  late  Dr.  Cutler,  of  precious  memory,  formerly  rector  of  St.  Ann's  Clinroh,  Brook- 
lyn, a  short  time  before  his  death,  met  the  writer  in  Chestnut  Street,  Phihidelijiiia,  and, 
without  a  word  of  salutation,  said,  "  Have  you  ever  thought  of  the  difference  between  com- 


§16]     THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     THE   REFORMED   CHURCH.     639 

prayers  and  hymns  of  the  Church  addressed  to  Christ  all  assume 
that  lie  has  human  sympathies  and  affections  which  make  his  re- 
lation to  us  entirely  different  from  what  it  is  to  any  other  order 
of  beings  in  the  universe.  If  any  one  asks,  How  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  his  body  and  soul  in  heaven,  can  sympathize  with  his  peo- 
ple on  earth  ?  the  answer  is,  that  it  is  in  personal  union  with  the 
Logos.  If  this  answer  be  deemed  insufficient,  then  the  questioner 
may  be  asked.  How  the  dust  of  which  the  human  body  is  formed 
can  sympathize  with  the  immortal  spirit  with  which  it  is  united  ? 
Whether  the  mystery  of  this  human  sympathy  of  Christ  can  be  ex- 
plained or  not,  it  remains  a  fact  both  of  Scripture  and  of  experience. 
In  this  sense,  and  not  in  a  sense  which  implies  any  relation  to 
Bpa.ce,  it  may  be  said  that  wherever  the  divinity  of  Christ  is,  there 
is  his  humanity,  and  as,  by  common  consent.  He  is  present  at  his 
table,  He  is  there  in  the  fulness  of  his  human  sympathy  and  love. 
But  this  presence  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist  is  predicated,  not 
of  his  person  only,  but  also  of  his  body  and  blood.  This  presence 
the  Reformed,  as  Zwingle  said,  "  if  they  must  have  words,"  were 
willing  to  call  real.  But  then  they  explained  the  word  "  real  " 
as  the  opposite  of  "  imaginary."  The  negative  statements  con- 
cerning this  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  are,  — 

1.  That  it  is  not  local  or  corporeal.  It  is  not  material  or  of 
the  matter. 

2.  It  is  not  to  the  senses. 

3.  It  is  not  peculiar  to  this  sacrament.  Christ  and  his  benefits, 
his  body  and  blood,  and  all  their  influences  on  the  believer,  are 
said  to  be  accessible  to  him,  and  as  truly  received  by  him  out  of 
the  supper  as  in  it. 

On  this  point  the  Confessions,  even  those  signed  by  Calvin, 
are  perfectly  explicit.  In  the  Zurich  Confession,  A.  D.  1545,  it 
is  said,  "  Believers  have  in  the  Lord's  Supper  no  other  life- 
giving  food  than  that  which  they  receive  elsewhere  than  in  that 
ordinance."  In  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  this  is  taught 
at  length,  and  the  doctrine  vindicated  from  the  objection  that 
it  renders  the  sacrament  useless,  that  if  we  can  receive  without 
it  what  we  receive  in  it,  the  importance  of  the  sacrament  is 
gone.  The  answer  is,  that  as  we  continually  need  food  for  the 
body,  so  we  continually  need  food  for  the  soul ;  and  that  the  sacra- 

munion  with  God  and  communion  with  Christ?  "  and  passed  on  witliout  adding  a  word. 
These  were  the  last  words  the  writer  ever  heard  from  lips  which  the  Spirit  had  often 
touched  with  a  coal  from  the  altar. 


640  PART   III     Ch.   XX— the   means   OF   GRACE. 

meiits  as  well  as  the  Word  are  divinely  appointed  means  for  con- 
veying that  spiritual  nourishment.  That  the  sacraments  are  means 
of  grace,  does  not  render  the  Word  unnecessary  ;  neither  does  the 
Word's  being  eJBtectual  and  sufficient  unto  salvation,  render  the 
sacraments  useless.  Calvin  teaches  the  same  doctrine  :  ^  "  The 
verity  which  is  figured  in  the  sacraments  believers  receive  outside 
of  the  use  of  them.  Thus  in  baptism,  Paul's  sins  were  washed 
away,  which  had  already  been  blotted  out.  Baptism  was  to  Cor- 
nelius the  laver  of  regeneration,  although  he  had  before  received 
the  Spirit.  And  so  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  Christ  communicates 
Himself  to  us,  although  He  had  already  imparted  Himself  to  us 
and  dwells  Avithin  us."  The  office  of  the  sacraments,  he  teaches, 
is  to  confirm  and  increase  our  faith.  In  his  defence  of  this  "  Con- 
sensus," he  expresses  surprise  that  a  doctrine  so  plainly  proved  by 
Scripture  and  experience  should  be  called  into  question.^  In  the 
decree  of  the  French  National  Synod  of  1572,  it  is  said,  "  The  same 
Lord  Jesus  both  as  to  his  substance  and  gifts,  is  offered  to  us  in 
baptism  and  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  received  by  believers." 

The  Church  of  England  teaches  the  same  doctrine,  for  in  the 
office  for  the  communion  of  the  sick,  the  minister  is  directed  to 
instruct  a  parishioner  who  is  prevented  from  receiving  the  sacra- 
ment "  that  if  he  do  truly  repent  him  of  his  sins,  and  steadfastly 
beheve  that  Jesus  Christ  hath  suffered  death  upon  the  cross  for 
him,  and  shed  his  blood  for  his  redemption,  earnestly  remember- 
ing the  benefits  he  hath  thereby,  and  giving  Him  hearty  thanks 
therefor,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ  profitably  to  his  soul's  health,  although  he  do  not 
receive  the  sacrament  with  his  mouth."  On  this  poiht  there  was 
no  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  Reformed  Church.  There  is  no 
communion  with  Christ,  no  participation  of  his  body  and  blood 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  not  elsewhere  offered  to  believers 
and  experienced  by  them. 

4.  There  is  still  another  position  maintained  by  the  Reformed 
which  is  especially  important  as  determining  their  doctrine  on 
this  subject.  They  not  only  deny  that  believers  receive  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  otherwise  than  these  are 

1  "  Extra  eorum  [sacramentorum]  usum  fidelibus  constat,  qua;  illic  fisuratur  Veritas.  Sic 
baptismo  ahluta  sunt  Pauli  peccata,  qua;  jam  priiis  abluta  erant.  Sic  idem  haptisnuis  Cor- 
nelio  fuit  lavacrum  regenerationis,  qui  tamen  jam  Spiritu  Sancto  donatus  erat.  Sic  in  coena 
se  communicat  Christus,  qui  tamen  et  prius  se  nobis  impertierat  ct  perpetuo  manet  in 
nobis."     Co7)stnsus  Tif/uriniifs,  art.  xix.;  Niemcyer,  Collectw  Cunfesxionum,  p.  19.5. 

2  Niemeyer,  p.  212.  "  Quod  deinde  prosequimur,  tidelibusspiritualium  bonorum  effectum 
quaj  figurant  sacranienta,  extra  eorum  usum  constare,  quanuo  et  quotidie  verum  esse  ex- 
perimur  et  probatur  Scriptura;  testimoniis,  mirum  est  si  cui  displiceat." 


§  IG  ]     THE   LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE   REFORMED  CHURCH.      641 

received  tliroagli  the  Word,  but  they  deny  that  believers  receive 
anything  in  the  eucharist  that  wa^  not  granted  and  communicated 
to  the  saints  under  the  Old  Testament.  This  of  course  is  decisive. 
Under  the  old  dispensation  it  was  only  the  sacrificial  efficacy  of 
his  broken  body  and  shed  blood  that  could  be  enjoyed.  He  died 
for  the  remission  of  sins  "  under  the  first  testament."  (Heb.  ix. 
lo.)  Therefore  the  fathers  as  well  as  we,,  and  they  as  fully  as 
we,  are  cleansed  by  the  sprinkling  of  his  blood  ;  to  them,  as  well 
as  to  us,  He  was  the  true  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven  ; 
they  all  drank  of  that  Spiritual  Rock  which  was  Christ.  Calvin 
devotes  several  pages  to  the  refutation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Ro- 
manists that  the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  only  signified 
grace,  while  those  of  the  New  actually  convey  it.  He  maintains 
that,  though  different  in  form,  they  are  the  same  in  nature, 
object,  and  effect.  "  Scholasticum  autem  illud  dogma,  quo  tarn 
longum  discrimen  inter  veteris  ac  novse  Legis  sacramenta  notatur, 
perinde  acsi  ilia  non  aliud  quam  Dei  gratiam  adumbrarint,  heec 
vero  prtesentem  conferant,  penitus  explodendum  est.  Siquidem 
nihilo  splendidius  de  illis  Apostolus  quam  de  his  loquitur,  quum 
docet  patres  eandem  nobiscum  spiritualem  escam  manducasse :  et 

escam  illam  Christum  interpretatur  (1  Cor.  x.  3) Quic- 

quid  ergo  nobis  hodie  in  sacramentis  exhibetur,  id  in  suis  olim  re- 
cipiebant  Jud?ei,  Christum  scilicet  cum  spiritualibus  suis  divitiis. 
Quam  habent  nostra  virtutem,  eam  quoque  in  suis  sentiebant ;  ut 
scilicet  essent  illis  divinae  erga  se  benevolentioe  sigilla  in  spem 
feternge  salutis."  He  quotes  freely  from  Augustine  to  prove  that 
that  eminent  father  taught  "  Sacramenta  Judoeorum  in  signis 
fuere  diversa  :  in  re  quse  significatur,  paria,  diversa  specie  visibili, 
paria  virtute  spirituali."  ^ 

With  these  negative  statements  agree  all  the  afiirmations  con- 
cerning the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
What  is  affirmed  to  be  present  is  not  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
absolutely,  but  his  body  as  broken,  and  his  blood  as  shed.  It  is 
the  sacrifice  which  He  offered  that  is  present  and  of  which  the 
believer  partakes.  It  is  present  to  the  mind,  not  to  our  bodies. 
It  IS  perceived  and  received  by  faith  and  not  otherwise.  He  is 
not  present  to  unbelievers.  By  presence  is  meant  not  local  near- 
ness, but  intellectual  cognition  and  apprehension,  believing  ap- 
propriation, and  spiritual  operation.  The  body  and  blood  are 
present  to  us  when  they  fill  our  thoughts,  are  apprehended  by 

1  See  Institutio,  iv.  xiv.  §§  20-26,  especially  §§  23,  26;  edit.  Berlin,  183i,  part  ii  pp. 
362-367. 

VOL.   III.  41 


612         PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — T  IE  MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

faith  as  broken  and  shed  for  our  salvation,  and  exert  upon  us  their 
proper  effect.^  "  The  body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,"  says  the  Helvetic  Confession.  '•'-  Yet  the  Lord  is  not 
absent  from  his  Church  when  celebrating  his  supper.  The  sun  is 
absent  from  us  in  heaven,  nevertheless  it  is  efficaciously  present 
with  us  ;  how  much  more  is  Christ,  the  sun  of  righteousness, 
though  absent  as  to  the  body,  present  with  us,  not  corporally  in 
deed,  but  spiritually,  by  his  vivifying  influence."  Calvin  says  : 
"•  Every  imagination  of  local  presence  is  to  be  entirely  removed. 
For  while  the  signs  are  upon  earth  seen  by  the  eyes  and  handled 
by  the  hands,  Christ,  so  far  as  He  is  a  man,  is  nowhere  else 
than  in  heaven  ;  and  is  to  be  sought  only  by  the  mind  and  by 
faith.  It  is,  therefore,  an  irrational  and  impious  superstition  to 
include  Him  in  the  earthly  elements."  He  likewise  teaches  that 
Christ  is  present  in  the  promise  and  not  in  the  signs.^  Ursinus, 
one  of  the  principal  authors  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  in  his 
Exposition  of  that  formulary,  says :  "  These  two,  I  mean  the 
sign  and  the  thing  signified,  are  united  in  this  sacrament,  not  by 
any  natural  copulation,  or  corporal  and  local  existence  one  in 
the  other  ;  much  less  by  transubstantiation,  or  changing  one  into 
the  other;  but  by  signifying,  sealing,  and  exhibiting  the  one  by 
the  other ;  that  is,  by  a  sacramental  union,  whose  bond  is  the 
promise  added  to  the  bread,  requiring  the  faith  of  the  receivers. 
Whence  it  is  clear,  that  these  tilings,  in  their  lawful  use,  are 
always  jointly  exhibited  and  received,  but  not  without  faith  of 
the  promise,  viewing  and  apprehending  the  thing  promised,  now 
present  in  the  sacrament ;  yet  not  present  or  included  in  the  sign 
as  in  a  vessel  containing  it ;  but  present  in  the  promise,  which  is 
the  better  part,  life,  and  soul  of  the  sacrament.  For  they  want 
judgment  who  affirm  that  Christ's  body  cannot  be  present  in  the 
sacrament  except  it  be  in  or  under  the  bread ;  as  if,  forsooth,  the 
bread  alone,  without  the  promise,  were  either  a  sacrament,  or 
the  principal  part  of  a  sacrament."  ^ 

1  "  Corpus  Christ!  in  coclis  est  ad  dextram  patris.  Sursum  ergo  elevanda  sunt  corda,  et 
non  defigenda  in  panein,  nee  adorandus  dominus  in  pane.  Et  tamen  non  est  absens  ec- 
cle^iae  suic  celebranti  coenam  dominus.  Sol  absens  a  nobis  in  etelo,  nihilominus  efficaciter 
pra;sens  est  nobis:  quanto  magis  sol  justitiaj  Christus,  corpore  incuelis  absens  nobis,  praesens 
est  nobis,  non  corporaliter  quidem,  sed  spiritualiter  per  vivificam  operationem.  ',xxi. ; 
Nienieyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  522.)  Calvin  says  {Cunsenxus  Tif/u- 
rinus,  xxi. ;  Ibid.  p.  19G):  "  Prassertim  vero  tollenda  est  quailibet  localis  pnesentiie  imagi- 
natio.  Nam  cjuum  signa  hie  in  niundo  sint,  oculis  cernantur,  palpentur  nianibus:  Christus 
quatenus  homo  est,  non  alibi  quam  in  coelo,  nee  aliter  quam  mente  et  tidei  intelligentia 
quiprendus  est.  Quare  perversa  et  impia  superstil  lo  est,  ipsum  sub  elementis  hujus  mundi 
ini'ludere." 

-   riiii:<en.fHS  Tif/nriinis,  x  ;  p.  194. 

»  Summe  of  Christian  Iteligion,  by  Zacharias  Ursinus,  London,  1645;  Catechism  of 
Christian  Htli^ivn,  quest.  77,  p.  434. 


§  16.]      THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.      b4y 

There  is,  therefore,  a  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  not  local,  but  spiritual ;  not  to  the  senses,  but  to  the 
mind  and  to  faith ;  and  not  of  nearness,  but  of  efficacy.  If  the 
presence  is  in  the  promise,  then  the  body  of  Christ  is  present, 
offered  to  and  received  by  the  believer  whenever  and  wherever  he 
embraces  and  appropriates  the  promise.  So  far  the  doctrine  of 
the  Reformed  Church  is  clear. 

Manducation. 

Our  Lord  in  John  vi.  53-58,  expressly  and  solemnly  declares 
that  except  a  man  eat  of  his  flesh,  and  drink  his  blood,  he  has 
no  life  in  him ;  and  that  whoso  eateth  his  flesh  and  drinketh  his 
blood,  hath  eternal  life.  It  is  here  taught  that  the  eating  spoken 
of  is  necessary  to  salvation.  He  who  does  not  eat  of  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  has  no  life  in  him.  He  who  does  thus  eat,  shall 
live  forever.  Now  as  no  Christian  Church,  not  even  the  Roman, 
maintains  that  a  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  essential  to 
salvation,  it  is  plain  that  no  such  Church  can  consistently  believe 
that  the  eating  spoken  of  is  that  which  is  peculiar  to  that  ordi- 
nance. Again,  the  Scriptures  so  clearly  and  variously  teach  that 
those  who  believe  in  Christ ;  who  receive  the  record  God  has 
given  of  his  Son  ;  who  receive  Him  ;  who  flee  to  Him  for  refuge  ; 
who  lay  hold  of  Him  as  their  God  and  Saviour,  shall  never  perish 
but  have  eternal  life  ;  it  is  plain  that  what  is  expressed  in  John 
vi.  by  eating  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  drinking  his  blood,  must 
be  the  same  thing  that  is  elsewhere  expressed  in  the  various  ways 
just  referred  to.  When  we  eat  our  food  we  receive  and  appro- 
priate it  to  the  nourishment  of  our  bodies ;  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
Christ,  is  to  receive  and  appropriate  Him  and  his  sacrificial  work 
for  the  life  of  our  souls.  Without  this  appropriation  of  Christ  to 
ourselves  we  have  no  life  ;  with  it,  we  have  life  eternal,  for  He  is 
our  life.  As  this  appropriation  is  an  act  of  faith,  it  is  by  believing 
that  we  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood.  We  accordingly  find  that 
this  is  recognized  in  all  the  leading  Confessions  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  Thus  in  the  Zurich  Confession  it  is  said,  "  Eating  is 
believing,  and  believing  is  eating."  The  Helvetic  Confession,  as 
quoted  above,^  says,  that  this  eating  takes  place  as  often  as  and 
wherever  a  man  believes  in  Christ.  The  Belgic  Confession  says,^ 
"  God  sent  Christ  as  the  true  bread  from  heaven  which  nourishes 

1  Page  636. 

2  "  Deiis  panem  vivificum  misit,  qui  de  coelo  descendit,  nempe  Jesum  Christum:  is  nu- 
trit  et  siistentat  vitam  fidelium  spiritualem,  si  comedatur,  id  est,  applicetur  et  recipiatur 
Spiritu  per  lidem."    xxxv.;  Nieineyer,  Colkctio  Con/essionum,  p.  385. 


644       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

and  sustains  tlie  spiritual  life  of  believers,  if  it  be  eaten,  that  is,  if 
it  be  applied  and  received  by  the  Spirit  through  faith."  Faith,  as 
shown  above,  is,  in  all  these  Confessions,  declared  to  be  the  hand 
and  the  mouth  by  which  this  reception  and  appropriation  are  ef- 
fected. A  distinction  may  be,  and  often  is,  made  between  spirit- 
ual and  sacramental  manducation.  But  the  difference  between 
them  is  merely  circumstantial.  In  the  former  the  believer  feeds 
on  Christ  to  his  spiritual  nourishment,  without  the  intervention 
and  use  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  ;  in  the  latter,  he  does 
the  same  thing  in  the  use  of  those  elements  as  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed sign  and  seal  of  the  truth  and  promise  of  God. 

Although  the  Confessions  are  thus  uniform  and  clear  in  their 
assertion,  "•  that  eating  is  believing,"  the  theologians,  in  some  in- 
stances, make  a  distinction  between  them.  Thus  Calvin  says  :  ^ 
"  There  are  some  who  define  in  a  word,  that  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
Christ,  and  to  drink  his  blood,  is  no  other  than  to  beUeve  on 
Christ  Himself.  But  I  conceive  that  in  that  remarkable  discourse, 
in  which  He  recommends  us  to  feed  upon  his  body.  He  intended 
to  teach  us  something  more  striking  and  sublime  ;  namely,  that 
we  are  quickened  by  a  real  participation  of  Him,  which  he  desig- 
nates by  the  terms  eating  and  drinking,  that  no  person  might 
suppose  the  life  whicli  we  receive  from  Him  to  consist  in  simple 

knowledge At    the   same  time,  we  confess  there   is    no 

eating  but  by  faith,  and  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  any  other  ; 
but  tlie  difference  between  me  and  those  whose  opinion  I  now 
oppose  is  this,  ....  they  consider  eating  to  be  faith  itself,  but  I 
apprehend  it  to  be  rather  a  consequence  of  faith."  Among  the 
moderns  Dean  Alford  makes  much  the  same  distinction.  "  What 
is  this  eating  and  drinking  ?  Clearly,  not  merely  faith  :  for  faith 
answers  to  the  hand  reached  forth  for  the  food,  —  but  not  the 
act  of  eating.  Faith  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  act :  so  that 
we  can  hardly  say,  with  Augustine,  '  Crede,  et  manducasti ;  '  but 
'  crede  et  manucabis.'  "  ^     Eating,  he  says,  implies  the  act  of  ap- 

1  "  Sunt  enim  qui  manducare  Cliristi  carnem,  et  sanguinem  ejus  bibere,  unoverbo  detiii- 
iunt,  nihil  esse  aliud,  quam  in  Christum  ipsum  credere.  Sed  mihi  expressius  quiddam  ac 
suhlimius  videtur  voluisse  docere  Christus  in  pneclara  ilia  concione,  ubi  carnis  susb  niatuUi- 
cationeni  nobis  commcndat:  nenipe  vera  sui  ))articipatione  nos  vivificari,  quain  manducandi 
etiam  ae  bibendi  verbis  ideo  designavit,  ne,  qiiani  ab  ipso  vitani  percipimus,  sinii)lici  cog- 
nitione  peroipi  quispiam  putaret.  (^ueniadnioduin  enim  non  aspectus,  sed  esus  panis  cor- 
pori  alimentum  surticit,  ita  vere  ac  penitus  participem  Cliristi  animam  (ieri  couvenR,  ut 
ipsius  virtute  in  vitam  spiritualem  vegetctur.  interim  vero  banc  non  aliam  esse,  quam 
fidei  manducationem  fatemur,  ut  nulla  alia  fingi  potest.  Verum  hoc  inter  mea  et  istorum 
verba  interest,  quod  illis  manducare  est  duntaxut  credere:  ego  credendo  mandueari  Christi 
Cdrnem,  quia  fide  noster  etHcittir,  eamque  manducationem  fructum  effectunique  esse  fidei 
dico."      fnstltutw,  IV.  xvii.  5;  edit.  Herlin,  18-'i4,  pp.  403,  404. 

^  Greek  Testament,  John  vi.  53 ;  edit.  Loadon,  1859,  vol.  i.  p.  723. 


§1G.]      THE  LORD'S  SUrPER.     THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.      045 

propriiition.  This  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  It  con- 
cerns simply  the  extent  given  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  faith. 
If  faith  be  merely  knowledge  and  assent,  then  there  is  a  difference 
between  believing  and  eating,  or  appropriating.  But  if  by  faith 
we  not  merely  receive  as  with  the  hand,  but  appropriate  and  ap- 
ply what  is  thus  received,  the  difference  between  believing  and 
eating  disappears.  When  we  are  commanded  to  eat  the  flesh  and 
to  drink  the  blood  of  Christ,  we  are  commanded  to  act ;  and  the 
act  required  is  an  act  of  faith  ;  the  act  of  receiving  and  appro- 
priating Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  redemption.  The  language 
of  Calvin  above  quoted  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  his  ex- 
plicit declaration  already  cited,  that  the  Christian  receives  and 
feeds  on  Christ  whenever  he  truly  believes  ;  and  with  the  fact  that 
he  admits  that  the  believer  eats  Christ  as  fully  elsewhere  as  in 
the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  especially  with  the  fact  that  the  saints 
under  the  old  dispensation  ate  of  the  same  spiritual  meat  and 
drank  of  the  same  spiritual  drink  as  fully  and  as  really  as  believ- 
ers now  do.  The  Reformed  understood  that  "  eating  and  drink- 
ing," as  used  in  John  vi.  51-58,  must  be  understood  "  figuratively 
of  the  spiritual  appropriation  of  Christ  by  faith,"  because  our 
Lord  makes  such  eating  and  drinking  essential  to  salvation.  On 
this  point  the  Lutherans  are  of  one  mind  with  the  Reformer),  in 
so  far  as  their  leading  theologians  understand  all  that  is  said  in 
John  vi.  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  of  the  appro- 
priation of  his  sacrificial  death  by  the  act  of  believing. 

What  is  received  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  question.  What  is  the  act  we  perform  in  eating  ?  and, 
What  it  is  we  eat  ?  are  distinct,  though  the  answer  to  one  may 
determine  the  answer  to  the  other.  If  the  manducation  is  not 
with  the  mouth  but  by  faith,  then  the  thing  eaten  must  be  spirit- 
ual and  not  material.  Nevertheless  our  Lord  says  we  must  eat  his 
flesh  and  drink  his  blood  ;  and  all  the  Reformed  Confessions  teach 
that  we  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  although  not  "  after 
a  corporal  or  carnal  manner."  In  answer  to  the  question,  What 
is  here  meant  by  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  almost  uni- 
form answer  is,  (1.)  That  it  is  not  the  matter  of  his  body  and 
blood.  (2.)  That  it  is  not  his  body  and'blood  as  such.  (3.)  That 
it  is  not  his  glorified  body  now  in  heaven.  His  body  and  blood 
were  received  by  the  disciples  before  his  death,  and  consequently 
before  his  ascension  and  glorification,  and  it  is  not  disputed  that 
believers  since  the   apostolic  age  receive  what  the  Apostles  re- 


646  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

ceived  when  this  sacrament  was  instituted.  (4.)  That  we  receive 
Christ's  body  as  broken,  or  as  given  unto  death  for  us,  and  liis 
blood  as  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  (5.)  That  therefore  to 
receive  the  body  and  blood  as  offered  in  the  sacrament,  or  in  the 
Word,  is  to  receive  and  appropriate  the  sacrificial  virtue  or  effects 
of  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross.  And,  (6.)  That  as  Christ 
and  his  benefits  are  inseparable,  they  who  receive  the  one  receive 
also  the  other  ;  as  by  faith  through  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  we  are  united  to  Christ  so  as  to  be  members  of  that  body  of 
which  He  is  the  head  and  the  perpetual  source  of  life.  By  faith, 
therefore,  we  become  one  with  Him,  so  as  to  be  flesh  of  his  flesh, 
in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  in  which  hu,sband  and  wife  are  no 
more  two,  but  one  flesh. 

Although  Calvin  admitted  all  these  propositions,  he  neverthe- 
less, at  times,  teaches  that  what  the  believers  receive  is  specifically 
an  influence  from  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  in  heaven.  Thus 
he  says  :  "  We  admit  without  circumlocution  that  the  flesh  of 
Christ  is  life-giving,  not  only  because  in  it  once  our  salvation  was 
obtained,  but  because  now,  we  being  united  to  Him  in  sacred 
union,  it  breathes  Hfe  into  us.  Or,  to  use  fewer  words,  because,  be- 
ing by  the  secret  power  of  the  Spirit  engrafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  we  have  a  common  life  with  Him  ;  for  from  the  hidden 
fountain  of  divinity,  life  is,  in  a  wonderful  manner,  infused  into 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  thence  flows  out  to  us."  ^  Again,  "  Christ 
is  absent  from  us  as  to  the  body  ;  by  his  Spirit,  hoAvever,  dwelling 
in  us.  He  so  lifts  us  to  Himself  in  heaven,  that  he  transfuses  the 
Hfe-giving  vigour  of  his  life  into  us,  as  we  grow  by  the  vital  heat 
of  the  sun."  ^  If  by  the  word  "  flesh,"  in  this  connection,  we 
understand  the  humanity  of  Christ,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
passages  above  quoted  may  be  understood  in  accordance  with  the 
common  doctrine  not  only  of  the  Reformed,  but  of  all  Christian 
churches.  When  Paul  said  "  I  five  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me,"  he  no  doubt  meant  by  Christ  the  incarnate  Son  of  God 
clothed  in  our  nature  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  It  is  a  divme-  . 
human  Saviour,  He  who  is  both  God  and  man  in  two  distinct,  na- 
tures and  one  person  forever,  in  wdiom  and  by  whom  we  live,  and 
who  dwells  in  us  by  his  Spirit.  Unless  we  are  willing  to  accuse 
the  illustrious  Calvin  of  inconsistency,  his  meaning  must  be  made 
to  harmonize  with  what  he  says  elsewhere.  In  the  "  Consensus 
Tigurinus,"  he  says  :  "  Christus  quatenus  homo  est,  non  ahbi 
quam  in  ccelo,  nee  aliter  quam  mente  et  fidei  intelhgentia  quaj* 

1  See  his  Consensionis  Capitum  Expositio,  Niemeyer,  pp.  213,  214.  ^  juj,,  p.  215. 


§  16.]     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.      647 

rendus  est ;  "  and  again,  "  Quod  autem  carnis  suae  esu  et  sangui- 
nis potione,  quae  hie  figurantur,  Christus  animas  nostras  per  fidem 
Spiritus  sancti  virtute  pascit,  id  non  perinde  accipiendum,  quasi 
fiat  aliqua  substantive  vel  commixtio  vel  transfusio :  sed  quoniani 
ex  carne  seniel  in  sacrificium  oblata  et  sanguine  in  expiationem 
effnso  vitamhauriamus."  ^  It  is  here  expressly  said  that  what  the 
believer  receives  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  any  supernatural  in- 
fluence flowing  from  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  in  heaven  ;  but 
the  benefits  of  his  death  as  an  expiation  for  sin.  It  is  to  be  re- 
marked that  Calvin  uses  the  very  words  of  the  twenty-third  arti- 
cle of  the  Consensus  in  explanation  of  what  he  meant  by  saying, 
"  ex  abscondito  Deitatis  fonte  in  Christi  carnem  mirabiliter  infusa, 
est  vita,  ut  inde  ad  nos  flueret."  ^  To  preserve  the  consistency  of 
the  great  Reformer  his  language  must  be  interpreted  so  as  to  har- 
monize with  the  two  crucial  facts  for  which  he  so  earnestly  con- 
tends ;  first,  that  believers  receive  elsewhere  by  faith  •  all  they ' 
receive  at  the  Lord's  table ;  and  secondly,  that  we  Christiana 
receive  nothing  above  or  beyond  that  wliich  was  received  by  the 
saints  under  the  Old  Testament,  before  the  glorified  body  of  Christ 
had  any  existence.  It  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  Calvin 
avowed  his  agreement  with  Zwingle  and  Oecolampadius  on  all: I 
questions  relating  to  the  sacraments.^ 

The  Efficacy  of  the  LorcVs  Supper  as  a  Sacrament. 

This  includes  two  points,  first,  The  effect  produced  ;  and  second, 
The  agency  or  influence  to  which  the  effect  is  due.  In  the  Lord's 
Supper  we  are  said  to  receive  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  redemp- 
tion to  our  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace.  As  our 
natural  food  imparts  life  and  strength  to  our  bodies,  so  this  sacra- 
ment is  one  of  the  divinely  appointed  means  to  strengthen  the 
principle  of  life  in  the  soul  of  the  believer,  and  to  confirm  his  faith 
in  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  The  Apostle  teaches  that  by  par- 
taking of  the  bread  and  wine,  the  symbols  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood  given  for  us,  we  are  thereby  united  to  him  as  our  head,  and 
\\\t\\  all  our  fellow  believers  as  joint  members  of  his  mystical  body. 
The  union  between  the  head  and  members  of  the  human  bod}' 
and  between  the  vine  and  its  branches,  is  a  continuous  union. 
There  is  a  constant  flow  of  vital  influence  from  the  one  to  the 
other.  In  like  manner  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  peo- 
ple is  continuous.  He  constantly  imparts  his  life-giving  influence 
to  all  united  to  Him  by  faith  and  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit. 

1  Art.  xxi.  xxiii. ;  Niemeyer,  p.  196.  ^  Niemeyer,  p.  214.  ^  See  page  631. 


648  PART  m.     Ch.   XX.  -  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

It  has  often  been  stated  already  that  the  Bible  teaches,  (1.)  That 
Christ  and  his  people  are  one ;  that  this  union  is  not  merely  a 
union  of  congeniality  or  feeling,  but  such  as  constitutes  them  one  in 
a  real  but  mysterious  sense.  (2.)  That  the  bond  of  union  is  faith 
and  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  dwelling  in  Him  with- 
out measure  is  communicated  from  Him  to  all  his  members.  As 
God  is  everywhere  present  and  everywhere  oj)erative  by  his 
Spirit,  so  Christ  dwells  in  oui-  hearts  by  faith  through  or  in  virtue 
of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (3.)  He  is  thus  our  life.  Ho 
works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. 
As  God  works  everywhere  throughout  nature  continually  control- 
ling all  natural  causes  each  after  its  kind,  to  produce  the  effects  in- 
tended ;  so  does  Christ  work  in  us  according  to  the  laws  of  our 
nature  in  the  production  of  everything  that  is  good ;  so  that  it  is 
from  Him  that  "  all  holy  desires,  all  good  counsels,  and  all  just 
works  do  proceed."  It  is  not,  therefore,  we  that  live,  but  Christ 
that  liveth  in  us. 

As  our  Lord  in  addressing  the  Apostles  and  through  them  all 
his  disciples,  said  this  is  my  body  and  blood  given  for  you.  He 
says  the  same  in  the  most  impressive  manner  in  tliis  ordinance  to 
every  believing  communicant :  "  This  is  my  body  broken  for  you." 
"  This  is  my  blood  shed  for  you."  These  words  when  received  by 
faith  fill  the  heart  with  joy,  confidence,  gratitude,  love,  and  de- 
votion ;  so  that  such  a  believer  rises  from  the  Lord's  table  re- 
freshed by  the  infusion  of  a  new  life. 

The  efficacy  of  this  sacrament,  according  to  the  Reformed  doc- 
trine, is  not  to  be  referred  to  any  virtue  in  the  ordinance  itself, 
whether  in  its  elements  or  actions  ;  much  less  to  any  virtue  in  the 
administrator ;  nor  to  the  mere  power  of  the  truths  which  it  sig- 
nifies ;  nor  to  the  inherent,  divine  power  in  the  word  or  promise 
by  which  it  is  attended ;  nor  to  the  real  presence  of  the  material 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  (^.  e.,  of  the  body  born  of  the  Virgin), 
whether  by  the  way  of  transubstantiation,  consubstantiation,  or 
impanation  ;  ^  nor  to  a  supernatural  life-giving  influence  emanating 

1  One  of  the  numerous  theories  concerning  the  eucharist  prevalent  more  or  less  in  the 
early  churcii,  was  that  which  is  known  in  the  history  of  doctrine  as  impanation.  A^S  in 
man  the  soul  is  united  to  the  body  imparting  to  it  life  and  efficiency  without  itself  becom- 
ing material,  or  rendering  the  body  spirit;  and  as  the  Eternal  Logos  became  flesh  by  tak- 
ing to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  without  receiving  anything  human  into 
his  divine  nature,  or  imparting  divinity  to  his  humanity;  so  the  same  Logos  becomes  united 
with  the  consecrated  bread,  without  anj'  substantial  change  in  it  or  in  Him.  His  relation 
to  the  bread,  however,  is  analogous  to  that  of  the  soul  to  the  body  in  man  and  of  the  Logos 
to  humanity  in  the  person  of  our  Lord.  As  the  assumption  of  our  nature  bj'  the  Son  of 
God  is  expressed  by  the  woi-d  "  incarnation,"  so  his  assumption  and  union  with  the  bread  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  called  "  impanation."     The  only  distinguished  modern  theologian  (so 


§  16.]    THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.      G49 

from  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  in  heaven,  nor  to  the  communica- 
tion of  the  theanthropic  nature  of  Christ,  but  only  to  "•  the  bless- 
ing of  Christ,  and  the  working  of  his  Spirit  in  them  that  receive  " 
the  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood. 

By  some  of  the  early  fathers  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
was  regarded  as  a  specific  effect  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  was 
therefore  called,  as  by  Ignatius,  *  ^a/jyua/<  jv  a&amtrtas,  ttiTtSjTos  tuv 
aTToOavili'.  This  idea  was  connected  in  their  minds  with  the  doc- 
trine of  impanation  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  foot-note.  Of 
this  there  is  Httle  trace  in  the  theology  of  either  the  Reformed 
or  Lutheran  Church.  In  the  Scotch  Confession  of  1560,  it  is  in- 
deed said  :  "  As  the  eternal  deity  gives  life  and  immortality  to 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  so  also  his  flesh  and  blood,  when  eaten  and 
drunk  by  us,  confer  on  us  the  same  prerogatives  ;  "  and  in  the 
confession  adopted  by  the  Lutherans  in  1592  it  is  said,  the  body 
of  Christ  is  received  by  the  mouth  "  in  pignus  et  certificationem 
resurrectionis  nostrorum  corporum  ex  mortuis  ;  "  on  which  Phil- 
ippi  remarks  that  those  words  do  not  imply  any  "  immediate  cor- 
poreal operation  or  any  implanting  in  us  of  a  germ  of  a  resurrection 
body.  They  only  teach  that  this  sacrament  is  a  pledge  of  our  res- 
urrection ;  and  as  this  idea  is  introduced  only  in  one  place  in  the 
acknowledged  standards  of  the  Church,  and  there  only  inciden- 
tally, it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  subordinate  matter.  The  main  point 
is  the  pledge  of  the  pardon  of  sin  and  of  eternal  life  which  includes 
an  assurance  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body."  ^ 

According  to  the  standards  of  the  Reformed  Church,  therefore  : 

far  as  known  to  the  writer),  who  advocated  this  doctrine,  was  the  late  Dr.  August  Hahn 
of  the  University  of  Leipzig.  "Bread  and  wine,"  he  says,  "in  the  Lord's  Supper,  are 
what  the  human  body  tormerly  was  when  the  Son  of  God  (the  divine  Logos)  was  here  on 
earth;  that  is,  the  means  of  his  perceptible  presence  and  efficiency  on  those  who  receive 
Him  in  a  penitent  and  believing  heart;  they  are  therefore  =  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
since  in  them  the  Lord,  who  is  the  Light,  the  Life,  and  the  Resurrection,  communicates 
Himself  actually,  truly,  and  essentially  (wirklich  und  wahrhaftig  und  wesentlich)  to  his 
people,  and  makes  this  bread,  the  bread  of  eternal  life."  See  Lehrhuch  des  CJiristlichen 
Glaubem,  von  August  Hahn,  Leipzig,  1828,  p.  602.  On  page  603,  he  says,  Luther  was  right 
in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  "  he  would  have  been  right  had  he  taught 
that  with  in,  with,  and  under  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy  Supper,  we  actually  and  essen- 
tially or  really  (wirklich  und  wesentlich)  receive  the  present  person  Jesus  Christ  or  tiie  Logos, 
and  hence  this  bread  and  this  wine  are  the  body  and  tlie  blood  of  Christ,  wherein  He  now 
communicates  the  bread  which  is  from  heaven  to  believers,  as  formerly  when  He  came  in  lit- 
eral flesh  and  blood  He  gave  Himself  to  them.  But  Luther  erred  when  he  asserted  that  with, 
in,  and  under  the  bread  and  wine,  the  real  body  which  suffered  for  us,  and  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  which  was  shed  for  us,  are  communicated,  because  according  to  the  Scriptures 
(1  Cor.  XV.  45-50),  the  spiritual,  heavenly  body  of  our  glorified  Lord,  is  not  flesh  and 
blood;  and  a  body,  whatever  be  its  nature,  cannot  as  body  be  ubiquitous." 

1  Ad  J'Jphesios,  xx. ;  -Epistles,  edit.  Oxford,  170!),  p.  19. 

2  Kirchllcke  Glauhenslehre,  von  D.  Fr.  Ad.  Philippi,  ordentlichem  Professor  der  Theo- 
logie  zu  Rostock,  Giitersloh,  1871,  vol.  v.  p.  266. 


t)50   PART  ni.  Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ;  as  a 
memorial  of  his  death,  wherein,  under  the  symbols  of  bread  and 
wine,  his  body  as  broken  and  his  blood  as  shed  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  are  signified,  and,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
sealed  and  applied  to  believers ;  whereby  their  union  with  Christ 
and  their  mutual  fellowship  are  set  forth  and  confirmed,  their  faith 
strengthened,  and  their  souls  nourished  unto  eternal  life. 

Christ  is  really  present  to  his  people  in  this  sacrament,  not  bodily, 
but  in  spirit ;  not  in  the  sense  of  local  nearness,  but  of  efficacious 
operation.  They  receive  Him,  not  with  the  mouth  but  by  faith  ; 
they  receive  his  flesh  and  blood,  not  as  flesh,  not  as  material  par- 
ticles, not  its  human  life,  not  the  supernatural  influence  of  his 
glorified  body  in  heaven  ;  but  his  body  as  broken  and  his  blood 
as  shed.  The  union  thus  signified  and  effected  is  not  a  corporeal 
union,  not  a  mixture  of  substances,  but  a  spiritual  and  mystical 
union  due  to  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  efficacy  of 
this  sacrament,  as  a  means  of  grace,  is  not  in  the  signs,  nor  in 
the  service,  nor  in  the  minister,  nor  in  the  word,  but  in  the  at- 
tending influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

§  17.  Modern   Views  concerning  the  Lord''s  Supper. 

The  modern  philosophy  has  introduced  certain  principles  as  to 
the  nature  of  God  and  his  relation  to  the  world,  and  as  to  the 
nature  of  man  and  his  relation  to  God,  which  when  applied  to 
Christian  doctrines  have  produced  a  revolution  in  theology.  It 
has  already  been  shown,  that  the  principles  of  this  philosophy  in 
their  application  to  the  origin  and  present  state  of  man,  to  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Christ,  and  to  the  way  in  which  men  are  made 
partakers  of  his  salvation,  have  introduced  a  method  of  presenting 
the  gospel  utterly  unintelligible  to  those  unacquainted  with  the 
modern  speculations.  The  word  philosophy  is  to  be  understood  in 
a  sense  wide  enough  to  include  a  great  diversit}^-  of  systems,  which 
although  they  have  certain  principles  in  common,  differ  widely 
from  each  other.  They  belong  to  two  general  classes,  the  panthe- 
istic and  theistic,  which  merge  off  into  each  other  in  every  variety 
of  form,  and  in  different  degrees  of  approximation  towards  idelitit3^ 

According  to  the  pantheistic  theory,  the  world  is  the  ever 
varying  and  unfolding  existence  form  of  God ;  and  man  is  the 
form  in  which  He  comes  to  consciousness  on  this  earth.  Accord- 
ing to  the  theistic  theory,  the  world  owes  its  existence  to  the 
will  of  God,  in  which  He  is  immanent  and  of  which  He  is  the 
life.     Man  is  the  form  in  which  generic  humanity  is  manifested 


§17.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     MODERN   VIEWS.  651 

in  connection  with  a  given  corporeal  organization.  On  neither 
view  is  there  any  real  dualism  between  God  and  the  world,  or 
God  and  man  except  as  occasioned  by  sin.  The  oneness  of  God 
and  man  is  affirmed  by  botli  classes,  by  Cousin  and  Ullman  for  ex- 
ample, with  equal  earnestness.  This  is  a  oneness  which  admits  of 
diversity  ;  it  is  a  unity  in  plurality ;  but  it  is  a  oneness  of  hfe ;  and 
such  a  unity  of  nature  that  God  may  become  man,  and  man  God. 

The  individuality  or  personality  of  man  depends  on  the  body. 
Generic  humanity  is  not  in  itself  a  person.  It  becomes  personal 
only  by  its  union  with  an  organized  body.  It  loses  its  personality 
when  it  has  no  body  ;  and  therefore  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  as 
distinct  from  the  body,  is  pronounced  by  Olshausen  an  anti-Chris- 
tian or  pagan  idea.  Whatever  of  conscious  existence  the  soul  has 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  must  be  connection  with  its 
body,  which  is  not  the  prison,  or  garment,  or  shell,  or  hull  of 
the  soul ;  it  is  not  in  any  way  one  form  of  existence  and  the  soul 
another  ;  both  form  one  life.  The  soul  to  be  complete  to  develop 
itself,  as  a  soul,  must  externalize  itself,  throw  itself  out  in  space  ; 
and  this  externalization  is  the  body.  All  is  one  process,  one  and  the 
same  organic  principle,  dividing  itself  only  that  its  unity  may  be 
come  the  more  free  and  intensely  complete.  The  soul  and  body 
are  one  ;  one  and  the  same  organic  principle.^ 

The  same  principles  are  applied  to  the  explanation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  According  to  the  decisions  of 
the  ecumenical  councils  of  Chalcedon  and  Constantinople,  which 
have  been  accepted  by  all  Christendom,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God 
became  man  by  taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable 
soul,  and  so  was,  and  continues  to  be,  both  God  and  man  in  two 
distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever.  By  nature  (c^i«r's)  is 
meant  substance  (owna),  as  these  words  are  used  interchangeably. 
By  the  one  nature  He  is  consubstantial  with  us  men ;  and  by  the 
other  He  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father. 

Tliis  dualism,  this  hypostatic  union  of  two  distinct  substances 
in  the  person  of  Christ,  involves,  as  taught  by  those  councils  and 
believed  by  all  Christendom,  two  e'rc/jyetat,  two  operations,  two 
wills.  There  is  no  mixture  or  confusion  of  these  two  natures ;  no 
transfer  of  the  properties  of  the  one  to  the  other,  but  each  retains 
its  own  peculiar  attributes. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  modern  German  theology  rejects  this 

1  The  commonly  received  distinction  of  mind  and  matter  on  this  theory  niust  be  given 
up.  They  are  not  two  distinct  substances  having  distinct  and  incompatible  properties  or 
attributes. 


652  PART   III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

distinction  of  natures  in  Christ,  It  denies  all  dualism  in  the  con- 
stitution of  his  person.  It  teaches  that  Christ  did  not  assume 
"  a  reasonable  soul  "  into  personal  union  with  Himself,  but  either 
that  He  himself  became,  by  a  process  ot  self-limitation,  such  a 
soul,  or  that  He  assumed  generic  humanity,  so  that  He  did  not 
become  a  man,  but  the  man.  His  assumption  of  humanity  was 
something  general,  and  not  merely  particular.  The  Word  be- 
came flesh ;  not  a  single  man  only  as  one  of  many ;  but  flesh  or 
humanity  in  its  universal  conception  ;  otherwise  He  could  not  be 
the  principle  of  a  new  order  of  existence  for  the  human  Avorld  as 
such.  By  this  assu.mption  of  humanity,  the  divine  and  human, 
God  and  man,  become  one  in  such  a  sense  as  to  exclude  all  dual- 
ism. There  are  not  a  divine  and  a  human,  but  there  is  a  thean- 
thropic,  or  divine-human  nature  or  life.  As  in  man  there  is  not 
one  life  of  the  body  and  another  of  the  soul,  but  the  two  are 
one  and  the  same  organic  principle,  so  in  the  case  of  Christ  the 
divine  and  human  are  one  and  the  same.  The  divine  nature  of 
Christ  is  at  the  same  time  human  in  the  fullest  sense.  Humanity 
is  never  complete  till  it  reaches  his  person.  It  includes  in  its  very 
constitution  a  struggle  towards  the  form  in  which  it  is  here  ex- 
hibited, and  can  never  rest  until  this  end  is  attained.  Our  nature 
reaches  after  a  true  and  real  union  with  the  nature  of  God,  as  the 
necessary  complement  and  consummation  of  its  own  life.  The 
idea  which  it  embodied  can  never  be  fully  actualized  under  any 
other  form.  The  incarnation,  then,  is  the  proper  completion  of 
humanity.  Christ  is  the  true  ideal  man.  Here  is  reached  ulti- 
mately the  highest  summit  of  human  life,  which  is  of  course  the 
crowning  sense  of  the  word,  or  that  in  which  it  finds  its  last  and 
full  significance. 

The  first  man,  Adam,  is  to  be  viewed  under  a  twofold  character. 
In  one  respect  he  was  simply  a  man ;  in  another,  he  was  the  man, 
in  whose  person  was  included  the  whole  human  race.  His  in- 
dividual personality  was  limited  wholly  to  himself  ;  but  a  whole 
world  of  like  separate  personalities  lay  involved  in  his  life,  at  the 
same  time,  as  a  generic  principle  or  root.  All  these  in  a  deep 
sense,  form  at  last  but  one  and  the  same  life.  Adam  lives  in  liis 
posterity  as  truly  as  he  ever  lived  in  his  own  person.  They 
participate  in  his  whole  nature,  soul  and  body,  and  are  truly  bone 
of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh.  So  the  life  of  Christ  is  to  be 
viewed  under  the  same  twofold  aspect.  He.  as  was  Adam,  is  an 
individual  person.  But  as  Adam  included  in  himself  the  race,  he 
included  all  other  human  persons  in  his  life  ;  so  Christ,  having 


§17.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     MODERN   VIEWS.  653 

assumed  generic  humanity  into  personal  union  with  Himself,  in- 
cludes in  a  still  higher  sense  a  world  of  other  personalities.  "  He 
was  Himself  the  race."  He  has  assumed  generic  humanity  into 
personal  union  with  Himself  and  thereby  rendered  it  divine  ;  it  is 
indeed  a  true  human  life,  but  it  is  nevertheless  divine.  It  is  one 
life  ;  not  the  life  of  the  Logos  separately  considered,  but  the  life 
of  the  Word  made  flesh.  He  was  man  more  perfectly  than  Adam 
himself,  before  the  fall ;  humanity  stood  revealed  in  Him  under  its 
most  perfect  form.  The  humanity  which  He  assumed  was  not 
new,  but  the  humanity  of  Adam  raised  to  a  higher  character,  and 
filled  with  new  meaning  and  power,  by  its  union  with  the  divine 
nature.  The  identity  of  Adam  and  his  race  is  not  material.  Not 
a  particle  of  Adam's  body  has  come  into  ours.  The  identity  re- 
solves itself  into  an  invisible  law ;  and  it  is  not  one  law  for  the 
body  and  another  law  for  the  soul ;  but  one  and  the  same  law  in- 
volves the  presence  of  both,  as  the  power  of  a  common  life. 
Where  the  law  works,  there  Adam's  life  is  reproduced,  body  and 
soul  together.  And  still  the  individual  Adam  is  not  blended  with 
his  posterity  in  any  such  way  as  to  lose  his  own  personality  or  to 
swallow  up  theirs.  His  identity  with  his  posterity  is  generic ;  but 
hone  the  less  real  or  close  on  that  acc6unt.  The  case  in  regard 
to  Christ  and  his  people  is  analogous.  His  life,  generic  humanity 
as  united  in  one  life  with  the  divine  in  his  person  passes  over  to 
his  people.  And  as  the  race  of  individual  men  is  developed  by  a 
regular,  natural,  organic  process  from  the  generic  humanity  in  the 
person  of  Adam,  so  the  life  of  Christ  rests  not  in  his  separate 
person,  but  passes  over  to  his  people ;  this  takes  place  in  the  way 
of  history,  growth,  or  regular  living  development.  In  regenera- 
tion we  become  partakers  of  this  new  principle  of  life,  that  is,  of 
generic  humanity  as  united  with  the  divine  nature,  which  involves 
a  participation  of  the  entire  humanity  of  Christ.  We  are  not 
joined  in  a  real  life  unity  with  the  everlasting  Logos,  apart  from 
Christ's  manhood,  in  the  way  of  direct  personal  in-being.  This 
would  make  us  equal  with  Christ.  The  mystical  union  would  then 
be  the  hypostatical  union  itself  repeated  in  the  person  of  every 
believer.  It  is  not  the  divine  life  of  the  Logos  as  such,  but  the 
theanthropic  life  of  Christ  which  passes  over  to  his  people.  "  The 
personality  of  the  Son,"  says  Olshausen  ^  "  as  comprehensive,  in- 
cludes in  itself  all  the  personalities  of  his  people  and  pervades 
them  with  his  own  life,  as  the  living  centre  of  an  organism,  from 
which  life  flows  forth  and  to  which  it  returns." 

1  John  xiv.  20;  Commentar,  3d  edit.  Konigsberg,  1838,  vol.  ii.  p.  352. 


654         PART  lU.      Ch.   XX.  — the  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

The  life  which  is  thus  conveyed  to  us  is  a  true  human  Hfe,  con- 
tix)ning  not  only  the  soul  but  also  the  body.  It  is  corporeal  as 
well  as  incorporeal.  It  must  put  on  an  outward  form  and  project 
itself  in  space.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  human  life  is  not  to 
be  split  into  two  lives,  one  of  the  body  and  another  of  the  soul, 
thus  constituting  a  dualism  in  our  nature,  instead  of  the  absolute 
unity  which  belongs  to  it  in  fact.  Soul  and  body,  are,  in  their 
ground,  but  one  life  ;  identical  in  their  origin  ;  bound  together  by 
interpenetration  subsequently  at  every  point,  and  holding  together 
in  the  presence  and  power  of  the  same  organic  law.  The  life 
of  Christ,  lodged  in  us,  works  in  us  according  to  the  law  which  it 
includes  in  its  own  constitution.  That  is,  it  works  as  a  human 
hfe ;  and  as  such  becomes  the  law  of  regeneration  in  the  body  as 
truly  as  in  the  soul.  This  does  not  suppose  any  actual  approach 
of  Christ's  body  to  the  persons  of  his  people  ;  nor  any  ubiquity  or 
ideaUstic  dissipation  of  that  body  ;  nor  any  fusion  of  ijhis  personal- 
ity with  ours.  We  must  distinguish  between  the  simple  man  and 
the  universal  man,  here  joined  in  the  same  person.  Adam  was  an 
individual  and  the  whole  race.  There  is  no  dissipation  of  Christ's 
personality  into  the  general  consciousness  of  the  Church  involved 
in  the  affirmation  that  his  person  forms  the  ground,  out  of  which 
and  in  the  power  of  which  only,  the  whole  life  of  the  Church  con- 
tinually subsists.  In  this  view  Christ  is  personally  present  always 
in  the  Church,  that  is,  of  course,  in  the  power  of  his  divine  nature. 
But  his  divine  nature  is  at  the  same  time  human,  in  the  fullest 
sense,  and  wherever  his  presence  is  revealed  in  a  real  way,  it  in- 
cludes the  person  necessarily  under  the  one  aspect  as  well  as  un- 
der the  other ;  with  all  this,  however,  which  is  something  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  conception  of  a  proper  ubiquity  in  the  case  of 
Christ's  body,  we  do  not  relinquish  the  thought  of  his  separate 
human  individuality.  We  distinguish  between  his  universal  hu- 
manity in  the  Church,  and  his  humanity  as  a  particular  man, 
whom  the  heavens  have  received  till  the  time  of  the  restitution 
of  all  things.  His  glorified  body,  we  doubt  not,  is  possessed  of 
qualities,  attributes,  and  powers,  that  transcend  immeasurably  all 
we  know  or  can  think  of  a  human  body  here.  Still  it  is  a  l)ody, 
a  particular  human  body,  having  organized  parts  and  an  outward 
form.  As  such  of  course  it  must  be  defined  and  circumscribed 
by  local  limits,  and  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  present  in  differ- 
ent places  at  the  same  time. 

The  life  of  Christ  as  communicated  to  his  people  Is  a  true  hu- 
man life  ;  and  all  life,  in  the  case  of  man,  is  actuahzed,  and  can  be 


§17.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.      MODERN  VIEWS.  655 

actualized,  only  in  the  way  of  process  or  gradual  historical  develop- 
ment. All  that  belongs,  then,  to  the  new  life  of  the  Christian,  con- 
ceived as  complete  at  the  last  day,  must  be  allowed  to  be  in- 
volved in  it  as  principle  and  process  from  the  beginning.  In 
every  stage  of  its  progress  it  is  a  true  human  life  answerable  to 
the  nature  of  its  organic  root,  and  to  the  nature  also  of  the  sub- 
ject in  which  it  is  lodged.  The  bodies  of  the  saints  in  glory  will 
be  only  the  last  result,  in  organic  continuity,  of  the  divine  life  of 
Christ  implanted  in  their  souls  at  their  regeneration.  There  is 
nothing  abrupt  in  Christianity.  It  is  a  supernatural  constitution 
indeed  ;  but  as  such  it  is  clothed  in  a  natural  form,  and  involves 
in  itself  as  regular  a  law  of  historical  development,  as  the  old 
creation  itself.  The  resurrection  body  will  be  simply  the  ultimate 
outburst  of  the  life  that  had  been  ripening  for  immortality  under 
cover  of  the  old  Adamic  nature  before.  The  -winged  psyche  has 
its  elemental  organization  in  the  worm,  and  does  not  lose  it  in  the 
tomb-like  chrysalis.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  is,  therefore,  as 
much  a  natural  process  as  the  development  of  the  butterfly  from 
the  grub,  or  the  flower  from  the  seed.^ 

1  To  avoid  the  danger  of  misrepresentation  the  exhibition  of  the  principles  of  this  mod- 
ern aspect  of  theology  has  been  given  in  great  measure  in  the  language  of  its  advocates.  No 
reference  to  names  is  given,  so  that  no  one  is  made  responsible  for  the  views  expressed. 
Experience  teaches  that  quoting  a  man's  words  is  no  security  against  the  charge  of  misrepre- 
sentation. The  writer  was  grieved  to  learn  that  his  friend  of  more  than  forty  years  stand- 
ing, Dr.  John  W.  Nevin,  considers  himself  to  be  unjustly  charged  by  us  with  holding  doc- 
trines which  he  earnestly  repudiates.  On  page  423  of  the  second  volume  of  this  work  he  is 
quoted  as  saying  that  Hegel's  Christological  ideas,  "are  very  significant  and  full  of  in- 
struction." This  has  been  construed  as  charging  him  with  being  a  thorough  Hegelian.  A*:  lO 
this  construction,  we  would  say,  first,  that  nothing  was  further  from  the  writer's  mind  than 
the  intention  of  making  such  an  imputation ;  and  secondly,  that  the  language  used  gives  no 
fair  ground  for  such  an  interpretation.  On  the  preceding  page  (428)  Dorner  is  quoted  as 
saying  that  "  the  foundations  of  the  new  Christology  were  laid  by  Schelling,  Hegel,  and 
Schleiermaeher."  Dorner  certainly  did  not  mean  to  intimate  that  all  the  modern  Chrii^tolo- 
gists,  himself  included,  were  Hegelians.  Neither  did  we  intend  to  intimate  that  Dr.  Nevin 
adopted  Hegel's  philosophy  as  a  system,  which  we  know,  from  his  own  authority,  he  ab- 
hors. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  Dr.  Nevin  is  represented  as  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  because 
he  is  quoted  as  saying  that  our  Lord  was  the  ideal,  or  perfect  man,  that  "his  divine  nature  is 
at  the  same  time  human  in  the  fullest  sense."  {Mystical  Presence,  Philadelphia,  1840,  p. 
174. )  Those  who  understand  this  language  as  necessarily  involving  the  denial  of  the  divinitv 
of  Christ  are  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  the  oneness  of  God  and  man  is  the  primary  principle 
of  the  New  Theology.  Even  Lutherans  hold  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  capable  of  re- 
ceiving the  attributes  of  divinity,  that  as  a  man  He  is  omniscient,  omnipresent,  and  almighty. 
Schleiermaeher,  as  we  understand  him,  had  no  other  personal  God,  than  Christ.  We  douTjt 
nut,  and  have  never  intimated  anything  to  the  contrary,  that  Dr.  Nevin,  although  he  make* 
Christ  the  ideal  or  perfect  man,  attributes  to  Him  in  his  theory  and  in  his  heart,  all  the  per- 
fections with  which  the  most  devout  believer  in  his  divinity  invests  the  adorable  Redeemer. 
How  he  reconciles  this  with  his  representing  Him  as  the  Ideal  man;  and  with  the  assertion 
that  He  has  but  one  life  and  that  life  in  the  fullest  sense  human,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say 
The  same  thing,  however,  is  done  by  many  others  besides  Dr.  Nevin. 


656  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF    GRACE. 

Applications  of  these  Principles  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  is  obvious  that  as  the  principles  above  stated  must  modify 
the  whole  method,  and,  so  to  speak,  theory  of  salvation,  so  they 
must  also  determine  the  view  taken  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  They 
necessarily  exclude  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ;  and 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  the  real  natural  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  present  in,  Avith,  and  under  the  bread  and  wine  in  this 
sacrament,  and  received  after  a  corporal  manner  ("  corporaliter  ") 
by  the  mouth.  No  less  obviously  do  they  exclude  the  doctrine  of 
Calvin  that  what  is  received  by  the  believer  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  supernatural  influence  emanating  from  the  glorified  body  of 
Christ  in  heaven.  In  like  manner  they  exclude  the  Reformed 
doctrine  that  what  is  received  are  the  sacrificial  benefits  of  the 
broken  body  of  Christ,  which  benefits  are  not  only  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  and  reconciliation  with  God,  but  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  which  we  are  united  to  Christ  and  made  partakers  of  his 
salvation.  As  our  redemption,  according  to  this  theory,  is  effected 
by  introducing  into  the  centre  of  our  being  a  new  principle  of  life, 
a  new  organic  law,  which  by  its  operation  and  gradual  develop- 
ment works  out  our  salvation  ;  and  as  this  new  life  is  generic 
humanity  united  with  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  so  as  to  become 
truly  divine  while  it  is  still  trul}'  human,  and  yet  only  one  and 
the  same  life,  it  follows  that  it  is  not  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
but  his  theanthropic  nature  that  we  receive  in  the  Holy  Commun- 
ion. 

We  are  therefore  told  that  the  real  communication  which  be- 
lievers have  with  Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper,  extends  to  his  whole 
person.  To  be  real  and  not  simply  moral,  it  must  be  thus  com- 
prehensive. We  may  divide  Christ  in  our  thoughts,  abstracting 
his  divinity  from  his  liumanity,  or  his  soul  from  liis  body.  But 
no  such  dualism  has  place  in  his  actual  person  —  that  is,  no  dual- 
ism between  his  divinity  and  humanity,  or,  between  his  soul  and 
body.  If  therefore  He  be  received  by  us  at  all.  He  must  be  re- 
ceived in  a  whole  way.  We  partake  not  of  certain  rights  and 
privileges  only,  which  have  been  secured  for  us  by  iha  breaking 
of  his  body  and  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  but  of  tlie  veritable 
substantial  life  of  the  beloved  Immanuel  Himself,  as  the  fountain 
and  channel  by  which  alone  all  these  benefits  can  be  conveyed 
into  our  souls.  We  partake  not  of  his  divinity  only,  nor  yet 
of  his  Spirit  as  separate  from  Himself,  but  also  of  his  true  and 
proper  humanity.     Not  of  his  humanity  in  a  separate  form,  hig 


§17]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.      MODERN   VIEWS.  657 

flesh  and  blood  disjoined  from  his  Spirit ;  but  of  the  one  life 
which  is  the  union  of  both  —  Spirit  in  such  connections  seems  to 
stand  not  for  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  for  the  divine  nature  of  Christ, 
for  the  life  of  Christ  is  not  the  union  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  his 
humanity  —  and  in  virtue  of  which  the  presence  of  the  one  must 
ever  involve  in  the  same  form,  and  to  the  same  extent,  the  pres- 
ence of  the  other.  What  we  receive  is  therefore  his  whole  life, 
as  a  single  undivided  form  of  his  existence,  by  one  and  the  same 
process.  The  participation  of  Christ's  life  in  the  sacrament  is  in 
no  sense  corporeal,  but  altogether  spiritual,  as  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  its  being  real.  It  is  the  soul  or  spirit  of  the  believer 
that  is  immediately  fed  with  the  grace  which  is  conveyed  to  it 
mystically  in  the  holy  ordinance.  But  this  is  in  fact  a  fruition 
which  belongs  to  the  entire  man,  for  the  life  made  over  to  him 
under  such  central  form,  becomes  at  once  in  virtue  of  its  own 
human  character,  and  of  the  human  character  of  the  believer 
himself,  a  renovating  force  which  reaches  out  into  his  person  on 
all  sides,  and  fills  with  its  presence  the  totality  of  his  nature. 
The  same  system  substantially  is  unfolded  by  Ebrard  in  his 
"  Christliche  Dogmatik."  What  is  taught  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper  presupposes  what  is  taught  of  the  nature  of  man  and  of 
the  person  of  Christ.  In  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  we  are 
united  to  Christ ;  but  the  nature  of  our  union  with  Christ  de- 
pends upon  the  nature  of  the  parties  to  that  union.  Humanity 
as  a  generic  life  developed  from  Adam  as  its  root  and  centre,  be- 
ing corrupted  by  sin,  is  healed  by  its  union  with  the  divine  nature 
in  the  person  of  Christ,  or  according  to  Ebrard's  mode  of  repre- 
sentation, by  the  Logos  becoming  a  man  by  a  process  of  self-lim- 
itation. Every  man  from  the  first  moment  of  his  existence  pos- 
sesses "  ein  substantielles  Centrum  seines  mikrokosmischen  Lebens, 
....  ein  Centrum,  welches  da  war,  ehe  der  Mensch  bewusste 
Gedanken  hatte,  und  welches  bleiben  Avird,  wenn  der  Leib  dera 
Tode  verflillt,  welches  also  an  sich  weder  Gedanke  (mens)  noch 
materieller  Stoff  ist."  ^  That  is,  every  man  has  from  the  com- 
mencement of  his  being  "  a  substantial  centre  of  life,  which  pre- 
cedes conscious  mental  activity,  and  which  will  remain  when  the 
body  dies,  and  therefore  in  itself  is  neither  mind  (mens)  nor  mat- 
ter." This  life-centre  is  instinct  with  a  force  which  develops  itself 
as  mind  and  body,  physically  and  psychologically.  It  is  the  Ego, 
the  personality.  It  is  the  seat  of  regeneration  which  consists  in 
introducing  into  this  substantial  centre  of  our  being  a  new  organic 

1  Christliche  Dogmatik,  iii.  iii.  2,  §  444;  Kcinigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  316. 
VOL.    III.  42 


6o8         PART  III.     Ch.  XX.  — the  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

law  wliicli  gives  rise  to  a  new  development.  This  new  law,  or 
principle  of  life  is  the  substance  of  Christ.  Herein  consists  the 
mystical  union.  "  This  union  is  a  central,  that  is,  an  organic  union 
between  the  soul-centre,  (seelischen  Centrum)  of  the  exalted  In- 
carnate one  and  our  soul-centre,  so  that  Christ  from  our  centre 
pervades,  controls,  and  sanctifies,  both  our  physical-somatic,  and 
our  noetic  life."  ^  A  few  lines  further  on  it  is  said,  "  This  com- 
munication is  real,  not  imaginary,  ....  in  that  before  all  our 
thought,  the  substantial  centre  of  our  physical  and  noetic  hfe  is 
organically  united  with  Christ's  centre,  [so  that  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per] we  receive  a  new  communication  of  the  substance  (Substanz- 
mittheilmig]  of  the  glorified  Son  of  man."  ^  What  is  communi- 
cated is  sometimes  said  to  be  "  the  person  of  Christ,"  sometimes 
"  the  whole  Christ,"  sometimes  "  his  life,"  sometimes  "  his  whole 
human  life,"  and  sometimes  the  "  organic  law  of  Christ's  human 
life."  The  Lord's  Supper,  therefore,  is  by  Ebrard  declared  to  be 
an  ordinance  "  wherein  Christ  renews  the  mystical  union,  the  real 
life-bond,  with  his  people,  in  that  He  renewedly  implants  Him- 
self, his  person,  and  glorified  humanity  in  them,  objectively,  really, 
and  centrally,  and  thus  confirms  and  renews  their  participation 
in  the  benefits  of  his  death."  ^ 

This  theory  repudiates  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  oral  manducation  of  the  true,  natural  body 
and  blood  of  Christ ;  the  Calvinistic  idea  of  an  emanation  from 
the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  re- 
ception of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death,  and  of  Christ 
Himself  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit,  and  insists  on  the  com- 
munication of  the  divine  humanity  of  Christ  to  the  soul  of  the 
believer  as  a  new  organic  law,  somewhat  in  the  same  way  as 
magnetism  is  added  to  iron  as  a  new  controlling  law.  Pliilippi* 
reviews  the  exliibitions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  given  by 
the  leading  German  theologians  from  Schleiermacher  to  Lange. 
The  epithet  of  "  mystic-theosophical,""  which  he  applies  to  the 
doctrine  of  Lange,  applies  with  more  or  less  propriety  to  all  the 

1  Christliche  Dogmntik,  iii.  iii.  2.  2.  B.  §  545  ;  Kimigsbeiff,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  fiSl. 

2  On  page  322,  Ebrard,  when  treating  of  regeneration  and  of  the  mystical  union  with 
Christ  thereby  effected,  quotes  the  following  passage  from  The  Mystical  Presence,  by 
Dr.  J.  W.  Nevin,  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  100,  as  expressing  iiis  own  views  on  the  subject  : 
"Christ's  person  is  one,  and  the  person  of  the  believer  is  one  ;  and  to  secure  a  real  com- 
munication of  the  whole  human  life  of  tiie  first  over  into  the  personality  of  the  second,  it  is 
only  necessary  that  the  communication  siiould  spring  from  the  centre  of  Christ's  life  and 
pass  over  to  the  centre  of  ours." 

*  Christliche  Dor/matik,  iii.  iii.  2.  2.  B.  §  545  ;  Kiinigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  (JSO. 

*  Kirchllche  Glaubenslthre,  vou  D.  Fr.  Ad.  Philippi,  Giitersloh,  1871,  vol.  v.  pp.  364-3801 


§  17.]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     MODERN   VIEWS.  659 

modern  German  theories.  They  are  unintelligible  to  the  majority 
of  educated  men,  and  as  to  the  poor,  for  whom  the  gospel  is  es- 
pecially designed,  they  are  absolutely  meaningless. 

Remarks. 

As  the  theory  above  referred  to,  in  its  main  features  has  been 
repeatedly  brought  under  review  in  these  pages,  there  is  the  less 
need  for  any  remarks  in  its  application  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  It  may  be  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing points :  — 

1.  If  there  be  no  such  tiling  as  generic  humanity,  no  such  ob- 
jective reality  ;  if  Adam  were  not  the  human  race  ;  if  he  and  his 
posterity  are  not  identical  in  such  a  sense  that  his  acts  were  their 
acts  as  truly  as  they  were  his  own ;  m  other  words,  if  the  scholastic 
doctrine  of  realism,  which  until  of  late,  has  been  regarded  as  ut- 
terly exploded,  be  not  true,  then  this  whole  theory  collapses. 
Its  foundation  is  gone. 

2.  If  it  be  not  true  that  in  man  the  soul  and  body  are  one ; 
one  living  substance  developing  itself  under  two  aspects,  so  that 
there  can  be  no  soul  without  a  body ;  if  in  the  person  of  Clii'ist 
there  are  two  substances  or  natures  hypostatically  united,  and  not 
only  one  nature  and  life,  so  that  his  divine  nature  is  in  the  fullest 
sense  human,  and  his  human,  divine,  then  again  the  whole  foun- 
dation of  the  theory  is  gone ;  then  there  can  be  no  communi- 
cation of  his  divine  humanity  or  theanthi-opic  hfe  to  his  people 
to  be  in  them  the  germ  of  a  new  life,  noetic  and  somatic,  to  be 
historically  developed  as  was  the  nature  derived  from  Adam,  until 
it  issues  in  the  resurrection  and  final  consummation. 

3.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  it  is  said  that  this  generic  hu- 
manity which  constitutes  the  identity  between  Adam  and  his 
race  which  is  the  analogue  of  the  mystical  union  between  Christ 
and  his  people,  resolves  itself  into  "  an  invisible  law."  Xow  what 
does  that  mean  ?  What  is  a  law  ?  In  the  lips  of  philosophers 
and  scientists  the  word  law  often  means  nothing  more  than  a  fact. 
What  are  the  laws  of  Kepler  but  facts  ?  By  the  laws  of  nature  is 
often  meant  nothing  more  than  generalizations  concerning  the 
orderly  sequence  of  events.  At  other  times  a  law  means  a  uni- 
formly acting  force.  An  organic  law  is  a  force  uniformly  acting 
to  produce  a  given  organic  result.  The  germ  of  a  bird  and  of  a 
fish  are  undistinguishable  by  the  microscope  or  by  chemical 
agents ;  yet  by  an  organic  law,  a  uniformly  acting  force,  the  one 
develops  into  a  bird,  the  other  into  a  fish.    What  then  is  meant  by 


660  PA1:T  III.     Ch.  XX.  — THE  MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

saying  that  generic  humanity  resolves  itself  in  a  law  ?  Can  it  mean 
anything  more  than  a  uniformly  acting  force  ?  Then  when  it  is 
said  that  generic  humanity  as  united  with  the  divine  nature,  so 
as  to  become  itself  divine  w^iile  it  continues  human,  is  communi- 
cated to  us,  does  it  mean  anything  more  than  that  a  new  uni- 
formly acting  force  is  implanted  in  our  nature,  as  when  the  mag- 
netic force  is  introduced  into  a  piece  of  iron  —  an  illustration, 
obviously  imperfect  indeed,  used  by  the  advocates  of  the  theory  ? 
Then  what  becomes  of  a  personally  present  Christ  ?  All  Christ 
does  for  us  is  to  implant  a  new  law  in  our  nature,  which  by  its 
natural,  historical  development  works  out  our  salvation.  It  is  this 
aspect  of  the  case  that  made  the  German  opposers  of  Schleierma- 
cher,  say  that  after  all  he  had  a  Christ  that  was,  but  is  not  now. 
Christ  appeared  in  the  world,  and  produced  a  certain  effect,  and 
then  passed  away,  leaving  nothing  but  his  memory.  It  is  not 
said  that  the  advocates  of  the  theory  in  question  view  the  matter 
in  this  light ;  but  it  is  said  that  some  of  the  first  minds  among  liis 
countrymen  regarded  this  as  the  logical  consequence  of  Schleier- 
macher's  system.  That  system  passed  in  Germany  for  what  it 
■was  worth,  an  ingenious  philosophical  theory.  In  this  country 
it  is  propounded  as  the  truth  of  God. 

4.  It  is  a  part  of  the  theory  under  consideration  that  we  become 
partakers  of  Christ's  redemption  only  in  virtue  of  our  partici- 
pation of  his  life.  His  life  brings  with  it  his  merit  and  his  power. 
He  is  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption  only 
so  far  as,  and  only  because,  we  become  subjectively'  wise,  right- 
eous, holy,  and  free  from  the  consequences  of  our  sins.  It  is  the 
Christ  within  us  and  not  the  Christ  -without  us  and  above  us,  that 
is  our  confidence  and  glory.  It  is  hard  to  see  on  this  theory  what 
meaning  there  is  in  praying  to  Christ  for  his  intercession,  his  guid- 
ance, his  protection,  or  his  love.  He  has  implanted  a  new  law 
within  us  which  works  out  our  salvation  by  just  as  natural  a  pro- 
cess of  development,  as  that  by  which  a  seed  expands  into  plant 
and  flower.  It  is  not  for  other  men  to  say  how  a  theory  lies  in 
the  minds  of  its  advocates,  or  to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  religio.us 
experience  ;  but  they  have  the  right  to  protest  against  any  theory 
which,  in  their  apprehension  of  it.  takes  away  their  personal  Sav- 
iour and  gives  them  nothing  but  a  new  invisible  law  in  their 
members ;  which  substitutes  for  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  "  the 
organic  law  of  Christ's  human  life." 

5.  This  new  doctrine  is  a  philosophy;  and  philosophy  we 
know  from  an  infallible  authority,  is  a  vain  deceit.     It  is  vain 


§  18.]     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.      GGl 

(K£r>;)  empty ;  void  of  truth,  weightless  and  worthless.  It  is 
moreover,  a  deceit ;  it  disappoints  and  misleads.  This  is  not  said 
of  natural  philosophy,  which  concerns  itself  with  the  facts  and  laws 
of  nature  ;  nor  of  moral  philosophy,  which  treats  of  the  phenomena 
and  laws  of  our  moral  nature ;  nor  of  intellectual  philosophy, 
which  deals  with  the  operations  and-  laws  of  mind  as  revealed  in 
consciousness.  But  it  is  said  of  speculative  philosophy  ;  of  every 
system  which  undertakes  to  determine  on  a  priori,  speculative 
principles,  the  nature  of  God,  the  origin  and  constitution  of  the 
universe,  the  nature  of  man  and  of  his  relation  to  God,  or  to  use 
common  language,  of  the  finite  to  the  infinite.  It  was  the  orien- 
tal philosophy  which  the  Spirit  of  God  by  the  pen  of  St.  Paul,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  pronounced  "  a  vain  deceit."  He 
says  the  same  thing  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  of  the  Greek 
philosophy,  whether  Eleatic  or  Platonic.  This  judgment  of  inspi- 
ration is  confirmed  by  experience.  Who  now  cares  a  straw  for 
the  speculations  of  the  ancients,  of  the  schoolmen,  or  of  their  mod- 
ern successors.  Who  is  now  a  Hegelian  ?  Forty  years  ago,  who 
was  not  ?  We  were  told  then,  as  we  are  told  now,  that  certain 
scientific  principles' have  a  right  to  be  respected  and  employed  in 
the  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  But  what  is  called 
science  —  in  the  sphere  of  speculation  —  in  one  age,  is  repudiated 
as  nonsense  in  another.  No  philosophy  has  the  right  to  control  or 
modify  the  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  except  the 
philosophy  of  the  Bible  itself;  that  is,  the  principles  which  are 
therein  asserted  or  assumed. 

§  18.   The  Lutheran  Doctrine  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Protestants  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  agreed  on  all  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  Luther  was  as  thorough  an  Augus- 
tinian  as  Calvin.  There  would  have  been  no  schism  had  it  not 
been  for  the  difference  of  views  which  gradually  arose  on  the  true 
nature  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  even  on  this 
point,  such  was  the  desire  to  avoid  division,  and  such  the  spirit  of 
concession  manifested  by  the  Reformed,  that  a  schism  would  have 
been  avoided,  had  it  not  been  that  Luther  insisted  on  the  adoption 
of  the  very  words  in  which  he  stated  liis  doctrine  on  the  subject. 
That  there  was  a  real  difference  between  the  parties  must  be  ad- 
mitted, but  that  difference  was  not  such  as  to  justify  a  division 
in  the  ranks  of  Protestants  ;  and  the  Reformed  were  willing  to 
adopt  a  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  which  both  parties  could  re- 
ceive without  a  violation  of  conscience.     One  attempt  after  aa- 


662       PART  in.   Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

other  designed  to  effect  a  compromise  failed,  and  tlie  Lutlierana 
and  Reformed  separated  into  two  ecclesiastical  denominations,  and 
so  remain  at  tlie  present  time.  In  the  Evangelical  Chnrch  of 
Prussia  under  the  pressure  of  the  government,  tlie  two  parties 
have  been  brouglit  into  one  Church  which  comprehends  the 
greater  part  of  the  people.  But  beyond  the  limits  of  Prussia  the 
two  Churches  remain  distinct,  though  no  longer  in  a  state  of 
mutual  alienation. 

Luther  took  his  stand  on  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  which  he  insisted  must  be  understood  literally.  He  would 
admit  of  no  figure  in  the  subject,  copula,  or  predicate.  Christ 
affirmed  that  "  This,"  that  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which 
I  give  you  to  eat,  is  my  body.^     This  position  having  been  as- 

1  Lutherans  lay  great  stress  on  the  fact  that  in   Matthew  xxvi.  26,  toOto  (this)  is  neuter, 
and  upros  (bread)  is  masculine,  and  therefore   that  the  meaning  cannot  be  '  This  bread  is 
my  body,'  but '  This  that  I  give  you  to  eat  is  my  body.'    It  must  be  admitted  that  the  neuter 
pronoun  cannot  be  referred  to  the  masculine  noun  grammatically,  but  it  evidently  does  re- 
fer to  it  ad  sensum.     '  This  thing  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  and  which  I  give  j'ou  to  eat  is 
my  body.'     But  the  thing  which  Christ  gave  his  disciples  was  the  bread  which  he  bad  taken 
and   broken;  and   therefore   it  was   the   bread  which   He  affirmed  was,  either  literally  or 
figuratively,  his  body.     Lutherans  themselves  cannot  avoid  saying  and  admitting  that  the 
bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  bod}'  of  Christ.     Thus  Luther  {Larger  Catechism,  v.  12, 
13;  Hase,  Lihri  Sijmholicl,  p.  554)  tells  his  catechumen  to  say,  "Though  infinite  myriads 
of  devils  and  all  fanatics  should  impudently  demand,  How  bread  and  wine  can  be  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ?  I  know  that  all  spirits  and  all  learned  men  put  together  have  not  as 
much  intelligence  as  Almighty  God  has  in  his  little  finger."     The  bread  therefore  he  teaches 
is  the  body  of  Christ.     And  Dr.  Krauth  (p.  609)  says,  "Just  as  it  would  be  blasphemy  to 
say,  '  Man  is  God,'  and  is  yet  literally  true  of  Christ,  '  This  man  is  God,'  so  would  it  be 
blasphemy  to  say,  'Bread  is  Christ's  body,'  and  yet  it   is  literally  true,    '  This  bread  is 
Christ's  body.'  "     It  is  conceded,  therefore,  that  after  all,  the  pronoun  "  This  "  (toCto),  in 
the  words   of   institution,  does  refer  to  the  noun  "bread,"  and  that  if   the   language   of 
Christ  is  to  be  understood  literally,  He  affirms  that  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  his 
body.     On  this  concession  it  may  be   remarked,  (1.)  That  it  seems  to  yield  everything  to 
the  Romanists.     If  the  bread  is  literally  the  body  of  Christ,  it  is  no  longer  bread ;  for  no  one 
asserts  that  the  same  thing  can  be  bread  and  flesh  at  the  same  time.     If,  therefore,  the 
words  of   Christ  are  to  be  taken  literally,  they  teach  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 
(2. )  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  bread  remains  bread  and  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in, 
with,  and  under  it,  for  that  makes  the  language  figurative,  and  the  literal  interpretation, 
the  main,  if  not  the  only,  prop  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  is  given  up.    When  Christ  says, 
"  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament,"  it  is  admitted  that  the  cup  is  used  metonymically  for 
the  wine  in  the  cup.     And  if  the  language  of  our  Lord,  '  This  bread  is  my  bod}','  means. 
This  bread  is  the  vehicle  of  my  body,  then  He  spoke  figuratively  and  not  literally;  and 
whether  the  figure  used  be  metonymy  or  metaphor  is  a  question  to  be  detern>ined  by  tlie 
nature  of  the  proposition,  the  context,  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture.     But  the  advocates 
of  the  metonymical  sense  are  not  entitled  to  charge  those  who  adopt  the  metaphorical 
meaning,  with  giving  up  the  literal  sense.     That  is  done  by  the  one  party  as  well  as  bj- 
the  other. 

A  great  deal  of  discussion  has  been  expended  on  the  meaning  of  the  substantive  verb 
"is,"  in  the  proposition,  "This  is  my  body."  The  Keformed  are  wont  to  say  that  it 
means,  "signifies,"  "represents,"  or  "symbolizes"  my  body.  The  Lutherans  maintain 
that  it  is  the  mere  copula  between  the  subject  and  predicate,  and  never  has,  or  can  have 
the  meaning  assigned  to  it  by  the  Heformed  ;  and  in  this  they  are  right.  Yet  it  seems  ta 
be  a  dispute  about  words.     There  is  no  real  difference  between  the  parties.     When  the  R» 


§  18  ]     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.       063 

sumed  it  necessarily  led  to  a  statement  of  wliat  is  meant  by  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  in  what  sense  the  bread  is  his  body 
and  the  wine  his  blood  ;  how  they  are  given  and  received  ;  and 
what  are  the  effects  of  such  reception.  On  all  these  points  the 
surest  sources  of  information  on  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  to  be  found  m  its  authorized  symbols. 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine  in  the  Symbolical  Books. 

The  tenth  article  of  the  first  part  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
is  very  short,  and  is  couched  in  language  which  Calvin  would  not, 
and  did  not,  hesitate  to  adopt.  "  De  CcBna  Domini  docent,  quod 
corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  vere  adsint  et  distribuantur  vescentibus 
in  Coena  Domini,  et  improbant  secus  docentes."  ^ 

The  language  of  the  Apology  is  more  explicit :  "  Decimus 
articulus  approbatus  est,  in  quo  confitemur,  nos  sentire,  quod  in 
Coena  Domini  vere  et  substantialiter  adsint  corpus  et  sanguis 
Christi,  et  vere  exhibeantur  cum  illis  rebus,  quce  videntur,  pane 
et  vino,  his,  qui  sacramentum  accipiunt."  "  Non  negamus  recta 
nos  fide  caritateque  sincera  Christo  spiritualiter  conjungi ;  sed 
nuUam  nobis  conjunctionis  rationem  secundum  carnem  cum  illo 
esse,  id  profecto  pernegamus,  idque  a  divinis  Scripturis  omnino 
ahenum  dicimus."  ^ 

In  the  Smalcald  Articles^  it  is  said:  "  De  sacramento  altaris 
sentimus,  panem  et  vinum  in  Coena  esse  verum  corpus  et  sanguinem 
Christi,  et  non  tantum  dari  et  sumi  a  piis,  sed  etiam  impiis  chris- 
tianis." 

formed  say  that  "  is  "  means  or  may  mean  "  sij^ifies,"  all  they  intend  is  that  the  one 
word,  in  the  case  in  question,  may  be  properly  substituted  for  the  other.  The  idea  intended 
to  be  expressed  by  the  words,  "  The  seven  ears  are  seven  years,"  may  be  expressed  by 
saying,  'The  seven  ears  signify  seven  years.'  This  does  imply  that  "are"  means 
"signify."  Dr.  Kranth  tells  us  that  Luther  in  his  version  of  the  Bible  employs  forty-six 
different  substitutes  for  the  substantive  verb  as  used  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.  It  would 
hardly  be  fair  to  say  that  Luther  gives  forty-six  different  lexicographical  meanings  to  the 

Hebrew  word  '^^'~^i  or  the  Greek  et^t.  Whether  the  proposition  "This  is  my  body  "  is  to 
be  understood  literally  or  figuratively  is  an  open  question;  but  there  can  be  no  question  as 
to  the  lexicographical  meaning  of  the  word  "  is."  No  one  doubts  that  such  propositions 
as  "I  am  the  living  bread,"  "  That  rock  was  Christ,"  "  The  seven  candlesticks  .  .  .  are 
the  seven  churches,"  and  hundreds  of  others  of  like  kind  occurring  in  the  Bible  and  in  ordi- 
nary language,  are  to  be  understood  figuratively.  And  it  may  be  safely  said  tiiat  if  the 
proposition,  "  This  (bread)  is  my  body  "  were  submitted  to  a  thousand  intelligent  men, 
Avho  knew  nothing  of  Christianit}',  not  one  of  them  would  hesitate  to  say  that  the  words, 
according  to  all  the  laws  of  interpretation,  must  be  understood  figuratively.  The  fact  that 
they  have  been  understood  literally  by  so  large  a  part  of  Christendom,  is  to  be  accounted 
for  by  other  reasons  than  any  ambiguity  in  the  words  themselves. 

1  Hase,  Lihri  SymboUci,  p.  12. 

2  IV.  5-4-56 ;  Hase,  pp.  157,  158.     Cyril  on  John  xv. 
•  VI.  1,  5;  Hase,  p.  330. 


664         PART  m.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

"  De  traiisubstaiitione  subtilitatem  sophisticam  nihil  curamus, 
qua  fingunt,  panem  et  vinum  relinquere  et  amittere  naturalem 
suam  siibstantiaui,  et  tantum  speeiem  et  colorem  panis,  et  non 
verum  panem  remanere.  Optinie  enim  cum  sacra  Scriptura  con- 
gruit,  quod  panis  adsit  et  maneat,  sicut  Paulus  ipse  nominat : 
Panis  quern  frangimus.     Et :     Ita  edat  de  pane." 

In  tlie  Smaller  Catechism  it  is  asked :  "  Quid  est  sacramentum 
altaris  ?  Responsio.  Sacramentum  altaris  est  verum  corpus  et 
verus  sanguis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  sub  pane  et  vino,  nobis 
Christianis  ad  manducandum  ac  bibendum  ab  ipso  Christo  insti- 
tutum.  Quid  vero  prodest,  sic  comedisse  et  bibisse  ?  Responsi(j. 
Id  indicant  nobis  haec  verba  :  Pro  vobis  datur  ;  et :  Effunditur  in 
remissionem  peccatorum.  Nempe  quod  nobis  per  verba  ilia  in 
Sacramento  remissio  peccatorum,  vita,  justitia  et  salus  donentur. 
Ubi  enim  remissio  peccatorum  est,  ibi  est  et  vita  et  salus.  Qui 
potest  corporalis  ilia  manducatio  tantas  res  efficere  ?  Responsio. 
Manducare  et  bibere  ista  certe  non  efficiunt,  sed  ilia  verba,  quae 
hie  ponuntur :  Pro  vobis  datur,  et :  Effunditur  in  remissionem 
peccatorum  ;  quse  verba  sunt  una  cum  corporali  manducatione 
caput  et  summa  hujus  sacramenti.  Et  qui  credit  his  verbis,  ille 
habet,  quod  dicunt,  et  sicut  sonant,  nempe  remissionem  pecca- 
torum." 1 

Luther  in  his  Larger  Catechism  enlarges  on  all  these  points  ; 
answers  various  objections  to  his  doctrine  ;  insists  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  faith  in  order  to  the  profitable  reception  of  the  ordinance ; 
and  exhorts  to  frequent  attendance  on  the  ordinance. 

The  Form  of  Concord  gives  the  affirmative  statement  of  the 
doctrine  ;  and  then  the  negation  of  all  the  opposing  views.  It 
affirms :  First,  the  true  and  substantial  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  this  sacrament.  Second,  that  the  words  of  in- 
stitution are  to  be  understood  literally,  so  that  the  bread  does  not 
signify  the  absent  body,  nor  the  wine  the  absent  blood  of  Christ, 
but  on  account  of  the  sacramental  union  "panis  et  vihum  vere 
sint  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi."  Third,  that  the  cause  of  this 
presence  is  not  the  consecration  by  man,  but  is  due  solely  to  the 
omnipotent  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Fourth,  the  "pre- 
scribed words  of  institution  are  on  no  account  to  be  ojnitted. 
Fifth,  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  the  doctrine  rests  are, 
(1.)  That  Jesus  Christ  is  insejiarably  true,  essential,  natural, 
perfect  God  and  man  in  one  per.son.  (2.)  That  the  right  hand 
of    God    is  everywhere,  and,  therefore,  Christ,  "  ratione    human- 

1  V.  1-8;  Hase,  pp.  380,  381. 


§18  J     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.      665 

itatis  sure,"  being  truly  and  actually  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
is,  as  to  his  humanity,  everywhere  present.  (3.)  "  Quod  verbum 
Dei  non  est  falsum,  aut  mendax."  (4.)  That  God  knows,  and 
has  in  his  power  various  modes  of  presence,  and  is  not  bound  to 
that  particular  mode  which  philosophers  are  accustomed  to  call 
local  or  circumscriptive.  Sixth,  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  received  not  only  spiritually  by  faith,  but  also  by  the 
mouth,  yet  not  "  capernaitice,"  but  in  a  supernatural  and  celes- 
tial Avay,  as  sacramentally  united  with  the  bread  and  wine. 
Seventh,  that  not  only  the  worthy  and  believing,  but  also  the 
unworthy  and  unbelieving  communicants  received  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  this  sacrament.^  Such  are  the  most  impor- 
tant affirmations  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Form  of  Concord,  on  the  other  hand,  denies  or  rejects, 
(1.)  The  papal  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  (2.)  The  doc- 
trme  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  (3.)  The  withholding  the 
cup  from  the  laity.  (4.)  The  figurative  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  institution.  (5.)  The  doctrine  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  not  received  by  the  mouth.  (6.)  That  the  bread  and  wine  are 
only  symbols  or  signs  of  a  Christian  profession.  (7.)  That  the 
bread  and  wine  are  only  symbols,  signs,  or  types  of  the  absent 
body  of  Christ.  (8.)  That  they  are  merely  signs  and  seals  by 
which  our  faith  is  confirmed,  by  being  directed  heavenward,  and 
there  made  partaker  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  (9.)  That 
our  faith  is  strengthened  by  receiving  the  bread  and  wine  and 
not  by  the  true  body  and  blood  really  present  in  the  supper. 
(10.)  Tliat  in  the  sacrament  only  the  virtue,  efficacy,  and  merit 
of  the  absent  body  and  blood  are  dispensed.  (11.)  That  the 
body  of  Christ  is  so  shut  up  in  heaven,  that  "  nuUo  prorsus  modo  " 
can  it  be  present  at  one  and  the  same  time  m  many  or  all  places 
where  the  Lord's  Supper  is  celebrated.  (12.)  That  Christ  could 
not  have  promised  or  offered  the  presence  of  his  body  in  the 
eucharist,  because  such  presence  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of 
a  body.  (13.)  That  God  cannot  by  his  omnipotence  make  the 
body  of  Christ  to  be  present  in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same 
time.  (11.)  That  faith  and  not  the  omnipotent  word  of  Christ, 
is  the  cause  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  supper,  (lo.)  That  believers  are  to  seek  the  Lord's  body  in 
heaven  and  not  in  the  sacrament.  (16.)  That  the  impenitent 
and  unbelievers  do  not  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Chiist, 
but  only  the  bread  and  wine.     (IT.)   That    the  dignity  cf  the 

1  Epitome,  VII.  1-16 ;  Hase,  pp.  599,  600. 


666 


PART   III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 


comiminicaiits  in  this  ordinance  is  not  alone  from  true  faith  in 
Christ,  bnt  from  some  human  source.  (18.)  That  true  be- 
lievers may  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  to  condemnation  if  imperfect 
in  their  conversation.  (10.)  That  the  visible  elements  of  bread 
and  wine  in  this  sacrament  should  be  adored.  (20.)  Prioter  haec 
justo  Dei  judicio  relinquimus  omnes  curiosas,  sannis  virulentis 
tinctas,  et  blasphemas  quii3Stiones,  qure  honeste,  pie  et  sine  gravi 
offensione  recitari  nequeunt,  aliosque  sermones,  quando  de  super- 
naturali  et  cc»lesti  mysterio  hujus  sacramenti  crasse,  carnaliter, 
capernaitice,  et  plane  abominandis  modis,  blaspheme,  et  maximo 
cum  ecclesia?  offendiculo,  Sacramentarii  loquuntur.  (21.)  Fi- 
nally any  corporal  manducation  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  denied, 
as  though  it  was  masticated  by  the  teeth  or  digested  as  ordinary 
food.  A  supernatural  manducation  is  again  affirmed  ;  a  mandu- 
cation which  no  one  by  his  senses  or  reason  can  comprehend.^ 

Although  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  may  be  re- 
garded as  stated  with  sufficient  clearness  in  the  Epitome  of  the 
Form  of  Concord,  it  becomes  still  plainer  by  the  more  expanded 
and  controversial  exposition  in  the  second,  and  much  more  ex- 
tended portion  of  that  document,  called  the  "  Solida  Declaratio." 
The  seventh  chapter  of  that  Declaration,  in  giving  the  "  Status 
ControversijE,"  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed,  says 
that  although  the  Sacramentarians  (as  tlie  Reformed  were  called) 
laboured  to  come  as  near  as  possible  to  the  language  of  the  Lu- 
therans and  used  the  same  forms  of  expression,  yet  when  pressed, 
it  became  apparent  that  their  true  meaning  was  very  different. 
They  admitted  the  presence  of  the  bod}'  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  supper,  but  it  was  a  presence  to  faith.  The  real  body  of 
Christ  is  in  heaven  and  not  on  earth ;  therefore  tliey  denied  that 
his  body  and  blood,  "  in  terra  adesse,"  and  taught  that  nothing 
in  the  sacrament  is  received  by  the  mouth  but  the  bread  and 
wine.  Tills  is  one  point  of  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and 
the  Reformed.  The  former  teaching  that  the  literal,  natural  body 
of  Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  actually  present  in,  with,  and 
under  the  bread,  and  his  blood  shed  upon  the  cross  and  which 
was  the  life  of  his  body  while  on  earth,  is  present  in,  with,  and 
under  the  consecrated  wine.  The  latter  teach  that  the  natural 
body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  and  is  not  on  earth,  and  therefore 
is  not  present  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  in  the  supper  of 
the  Lord.  What  is  present,  according  to  Calvin,  is  not  the  nat- 
ural body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  a   supernatural,    hfe-giving 

1  Epitome,  vii.  22-42  ;  TIasc,  pp.  G02-G04. 


§18.]     THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.     THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.      667 

influence  emanating  from  his  glorified  body  in  heaven,  and  con- 
veyed to  the  believer  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Reformed  generally,  it  is  not  this  supernatural  power 
of  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  that  is  present  and  received,  but 
the  sacrificial  efficacy  of  his  body  broken  and  his  blood  shed  for 
the  remission  of  sins. 

Secondly,  as  the  thing  received,  according  to  the  two  doctrines, 
is  different,  so  are  the  mode  and  organ  and  condition  of  recep- 
tion. According  to  the  Lutherans  the  body  and  blood  are  re- 
ceived "  corporaliter  ;  "  the  organ  is  the  mouth  ;  the  only  condi- 
tion is  the  actual  reception  of  the  bread  and  wine.  The  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  received  equally  by  believers  and  unbeliev- 
ers ;  although  to  their  spiritual  good  only  by  the  former.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Reformed,  the  mode  of  reception  is  not  corporeal,  but 
spiritual ;  the  organ  is  not  the  mouth,  but  faith ;  and  the  condi- 
tion of  reception  is  the  presence  and  exercise  of  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  communicant.  This  point  of  difference  is  clearly  recog- 
nized in  tlie  Form  of  Concord,  when  it  says  that  the  Reformed 
think  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  "  tantum  in  coelis,  et 
praiterea  niiUibi  esse,  ideoque  Christum  nobis  cum  pane  et  vino 
verum  corpus  et  verum  sanguinem  manducandum  et  bibendum 
dare,  spiritualiter,  per  fidem,  sed  non  corporaliter  ore  sumen 
dum."  1 

Mandueation. 

Thirdly,  another  point  of  difference,  which  the  Form  of  Con- 
cord points  out  between  the  two  Churches,  concerns  the  mandu- 
eation or  eating  which  takes  place  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Our 
Lord  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  although  not  there 
treating  of  the  Eucharist,  says,  that  He  is  the  true  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  that  whosoever  eateth  of  that  bread 
shall  live  forever.  And  in  the  same  chapter,  with  a  change  of 
language  but  not  of  meaning,  He  says,  "  The  bread  that  I  will 
give  is  my  flesh."  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man^ 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  my 
flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day."  Such  being  the  language  of  Christ, 
every  Christian  must  admit  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
believer  may  properly  be  said  to  eat  the  flesh  and  to  drink  the 
blood  of  the  Son  of  man.     The  only  question  is.  What  does  such 

1  SuUda  Declaratio,  vii.  0;  Hase,  Libr-l  SijmboUci,  p.  727.  See  also  Dr.  Juliu3  Mij  ler. 
Vert/ldchunrj  der  Lehren  Luthers  und  Calvins  vom  heiligen  Abendmalil,  in  liL'.  Dogma- 
titche  Abhandlunf/en,  Bremen,  1870,  p.  425. 


668       PART  m.   ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

language  mean  ?  According  to  the  Reformed  the  meaning  is  that 
it  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  eternal  life,  that  we  should 
receive  Christ  as  He  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel ;  and  as  He  is 
there  offered  to  us  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  his  body  broken  and 
his  blood  shed  for  us,  we  must  receive  and  appropriate  Him  in 
that  character.  To  receive  Him  as  the  true  bread,  and  to  eat  of 
that  bread,  is  to  receive  and  appropriate  Him  as  being  to  us  the 
source  of  eternal  life  ;  and  to  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood  is 
to  receive  and  appropriate  Him  as  the  broken  and  bleeding  sacri- 
fice for  our  sins.  In  other  words,  to  eat  is  to  believe.  The  F  orm 
of  Concord  correctly  recognizes  this  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed Church.  It  says,^  that  the  Reformed  in  rejecting  the 
literal  sense  of  the  words  "  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  teach  "  ut  edere 
corpus  Christi  nihil  aliud  ipsis  significet,  quam  credere  in  Chris- 
tum, et  vocabulum  corporis  illis  nil  nisi  symbolum,  hoc  est,  sig- 
num  seu  figuram  corporis  Christi  denotet,  quod  tamen  non  in  ter- 
ris  in  sacra  coena  preesens,  sed  tantum  in  coelis  sit."  That  the 
Reformed  are  right  in  this  matter  may,  in  passing,  be  argued, 
(1.)  From  the  fact  that  our  Lord  in  John  vi.  interchanges  as 
Equivalent  the  words  "  eating  "  and  "  believing."  He  says,  "  If 
any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever ;  "  and,  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life.  I  am  that  bread  of  life." 
The  same  specific  effect  is  ascribed  to  eating  and  believing,  and 
therefore  the  two  words  express  the  same  act.  (2.)  The  eating 
spoken  of  is  declared  to  be  the  indispensable  condition  of  eternal 
life.  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  But  it  is  the  clear  doctrine  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches,  that  the  only  eating  which  is  necessary  to  eternal  life  is 
that  which  consists  in  believing.  Lutherans  are  as  far  as  the  Re- 
formed from  making  the  sacramental  eating  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  supper  essential  to  salvation.  (3.)  Nothing  is  es- 
sential to  salvation  under  the  new  dispensation  that  was  not  essen- 
tial under  the  old.  This  also  is  a  part  of  the  common  faith  of 
both  Churches.  But  under  the  Old  Testament  there  could  be-no 
other  eating  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  than  believing  on  Him  as  the 
passover,  or,  lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world. 
(4.)  Any  corporal  eating  of  the  flesh  of  Christ's  body  and  drink- 
ing of  his  blood,  as  He  sat  at  table  with  his  disciples,  would  seem 
to  be  inconceivable.  (5.)  Our  Lord  Himself,  in  opposition  to  the 
sense  put  upon  his  words  by  the  people  of  Capernaum,  said  :  "It 

1  VII.  7;  Ilase,  Libvi  Symbalici,  p.  727. 


i 


§18]   THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.      THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.     G69 

is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing;  the 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  sj)irit,  and  they  are  hfe." 
It  was  not  liis  Hteral  flesh  that  He  was  to  give  us  to  eat,  for  that 
woukl  profit  nothing.  His  words,  on  that  subject,  were  to  be  un- 
derstood in  a  spiritual  sense. ^ 

But  although  the  Lutherans  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed who  teach  that  the  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
sacrament  is  spiritual  and  by  faith,  and  assert  that  it  is  corporal 
(corporaliter)  and  by  the  mouth,  yet  they  strenuously  resist  the 
idea  that  it  is  after  the  manner  of  ordinary  food.  They  maintain 
that  the  manner  is  supernatural  and  incomprehensible.  The 
Lutherans  distinguish  between  a  spiritual  manducation,  of  which 
says  the  Form  of  Concord,  Christ  treats  especially  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John,  and  which  is  by  faith,  and  a  sacramental 
manducation  which  is  by  the  mouth,  when  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
"  verum  et  substantiale  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  ore  accipiimtur 
atque  parcicipantur  ab  omnibus,  qui  panem  ilium  benedictum  et 
vinum  in  coena  Dominica  edunt  et  bibunt."  The  words  of  Christ, 
it  is  said,  "  non  potest  nisi  orali,  non  autem  de  crassa,  carnali, 
capernaitica,  sed  de  supernaturali  et  incomprehensibili  manduca- 
tione  corporis  Christi  intelligi."  ^  Bemg  incomprehensible,  it  is 
of  course  inexplicable. 

However,  although  the  Lutherans  reject  the  idea  that  the  body 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  eaten  after  the  manner  of  ordi- 
nary food,  yet  the  language  of  Luther  on  this  subject,  adopted  or 
defended  by  his  followers,  can  hardly  be  understood  in  any  other 
sense.  In  his  instruction  to  Melancthon,^  he  says,  "  Of  our  doc- 
trine this  is  the  sum,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  truly  eaten  in 
and  with  the  bread,  so  that  what  the  bread  does  and  suffers,  the 
body  of  Christ  does  and  suffers  ;  it  is  distributed,  eaten,  and  masti- 
cated (zerbissen)  by  the  teeth."  On  this  passage  Philippi*  re- 
marks that  as  Luther  says  that  this  is  propter  unlonem  sacra- 
mentalem^  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  language  of  the  Form 
of  Concord  which  denies  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  lacerated  by 
the  teeth  and  digested  as  ordinary  food.  He  says  it  is  analo- 
gous to  the  proposition,  God  died,  not  as  to  his  divine   nature 

1  There  nve  two  modes  of  interpretinf:^  the  passage  John  vi.  50-58.  According  to  the 
one,  it  is  to  bo  understood  as  referring  to  a  participation  of  the  benefit  of  Ciii'ist's  sacri- 
ficial death,  according  to  the  other,  of  the  reception  of  his  body  and  bluud  in  tiic  Supper. 
A  hirge  portion  of  the  Lutheran  tiieologians  ado])t  the  former. 

2  /•'((/•//(  of  Concord,  vu.  03,  04;  Ilase,  Lihri  Sijiiibollci,  pp.  744,  745. 

3  Works,  edit.  Walch.  1745,  vol.  xvi.  p.  2489. 

4  KirchlidiC  GlauhcnsJihre,  vol.  v.  p.  350. 


670         PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

but  as  to  his  assumed  human  nature.     The  langcuac-e  of  Luther 
on  this  subject  is  seldom  now  heard  from  tlie  Hps  of  Lutherans. 

Mode  of  Presence. 

A  thing  is  present  where  it  is  perceived  and  where  it  acts.  The 
nature  of  that  presence  varies  with  the  nature  of  the  object  of 
which  it  is  affirmed.  A  body  is  present  where  it  is  perceived  by 
the  senses  or  acts  upon  them.  The  soul  is  present  where  it  per- 
ceives and  acts.  It  is  somewhere,  and  not  everywhere.  God  is 
present  everywhere,  as  He  fills  immensity.  There  is  no  portion 
of  space  from  which  He  is  absent  as  to  his  essence,  knowledge,  or 
power.i  As  the  Lutherans  affirm  the  presence  of  the  substance 
of  Christ's  natural  body  and  blood  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  that 
body  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  and  suffered  on  the  cross ; 
and  as  that  body  was  and  is  material,  it  would  seem  to  follow 
tliat  the  presence  affirmed  is  local.  It  is  a  presence  in  a  definite 
place.  The  Reformed,  therefore,  always  understood  the  Luther- 
ans to  assert  the  local  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  Lutherans,  how^ever,  deny  that  they  teach 
any  such  presence.  This  after  all  may  be  a  dispute  about  words.^ 
The  parties  may  take  the  word  "  local "  in  different  senses.  The 
Lutherans  say  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  wdth,  in, 
and  under  the  bread  and  Avine.  They  are  held  in  the  hand  and 
taken  into  the  mouth.  This  is  all  the  Reformed  mean  when  they 
speak  of  a  local  presence  ;  a  presence  in  a  definite  portion  of  space. 
Magnetism  is  locally  present  in  the  magnet ;  electricity  in  the 
Leyden  jar.  The  soul  is  locally  present  in  the  body.  The  man 
is  locally  present  in  mind  and  body  where  he  perceives  and  acts  and 
where  he  is  perceived  and  acted  upon.     Lutherans  appmii-  to  take 

1  Luther  and  Lutherans  speak  of  tlirce  niodcs  of  Christ's  presence:  First,  tliat  ii\  wliich 
He  was  present  when  here  on  earth;  "  raiinierfiillende  und  voni  Hauin  innsciu)lk'iu',"  i-jiace- 
filliiiy;  and  by  si)ace  circumscribed;  Second,  that  whicli  is  in  space,  but  docs  not  fill  any  por- 
tion of  it,  and  is  not  circumscribed  by  it.  In  this  state  Clirist's  body  rose  from  the  ^rave 
and  passed  tiirouf^h  chised  doors.  Tliis  kind  of  presence  belongs  to  angels.  Third,  the 
divine  and  celestial  mode  of  presence,  accordinjji;  to  which  Christ,  in  virtue  of  the  ini;(}n  of 
the  two  luitures  in  his  person,  is  present  in  his  humanity,  in  his  soul  and  l>i)'iy,  \\  hiTcver 
God  is  present.  It  is  specially  in  the  second  and  third  modes  (the  ddiiiitive  and  tiie  re- 
pletive)  tliat  Luther  asserted  the  presence  of  (Christ's  body  in  the  encharist;  althouuh  he 
asserted  tliat  the  lirst  was  possible,  "  Dcnn  er  woUe  in  keiner  'Weise  liiii.:;-neu,  dass  (Jottes 
Gewalt  nicht  sollte  so  viel  vermi  jj^en,  dass  ein  Leil)  ^cuLflcich  an  vielen  (Jrten  sein  mige, 
auch  leililicher,  bej^reifliclier  Weise."     Philipiii,  n/  .fiiprn,  vol.  v.  p.  •'UO. 

-  On  this  word  Gerhard  remarks:  "Terminum  localis  pra^scntiic  esse  ambiijuuni.  Corpus 
Christi  pr;escns  esse  dicinnis  in  illo  loco,  in  cpio  eelcbratur  ca'ua,  sed  modo  locili  ct  cir- 
cumscriptivo  pnesens -esse  negamus.  Si  pncsentiani  localen;  sei-su  jxisteriori  iniiliigiir.t, 
halient  nos  sibi  consenticntes;  si  priori,  repugnanuis."  Loci  Thtolot/ici,  xxn.  xi.  §133 
edit.  Tiibingen,  1770,  vol.  x.  p.  18G. 


§18.]    THE  LORD'S  SUPrER.      THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.     671 

the  word  "  local "  in  a  sense  in  which  it  characterizes  the  presence 
of  a  body  which  is  present  exclusively,  i.  e.,  both  in  the  sense  of 
excluding  all  other  bodies  from  the  same  portion  of  space,  being 
bounded  by  it,  and  of  being  nowhere  else.  The  Reformed  say 
that  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  such  a  body  as  that  which  be- 
longs to  man,  that  it  should  be  in  many  places  at  the  same  time, 
much  less  that  it  should  fill  all  space.  The  idea  that  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  omnipresent,  seems  to  involve  a  contradic- 
tion. It  is  in  vain  to  appeal  to  the  omnipotence  of  God.  Contra- 
dictions are  not  the  objects  of  power.  It  is  no  more  a  limitation 
of  the  power  of  God  to  say  that  He  cannot  do  the  impossible,  that 
He  cannot  make  right  wrong,  or  the  finite  infinite,  than  it  is  a  lim- 
itation of  his  wisdom  that  He  cannot  teach  the  untrue  or  the  un- 
wise. All  such  assumptions  destroy  the  idea  of  God  as  a  rational 
Being.  If  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  be  everywhere  present, 
then  they  are  received  in  every  ordinary  meal  as  well  as  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  answer  which  Lutherans  give  to  this  objec- 
tion, namel}^,  that  it  is  one  thing  for  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  om- 
nipresent, and  another  for  it  to  be  accessible,  or  everywhere  given, 
is  unsatisfactory  ;  because  the  virtue  resides  in  the  body  and 
blood,  and  if  they  are  everywhere  present  and  received  they  are 
everywhere  operative,  at  least  to  believers.  If  this  omnij)resence 
of  the  body  of  Christ  was  actual  only  after  his  ascension,  then,  as 
Miiller  ^  argues,  the  Apostles  must,  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  have  partaken  of  his  body  and  blood  in  a  manner  pecul- 
iar to  that  one  occasion,  and  Christ,  so  far  as  other  Christians  are 
concerned,  only  foretold  that  his  body  would  be  ubiquitous  and 
therefore  present  in  the  eucharist.  Luther,  therefore,  says,  "  If 
Christ  at  the  Last  Supper  had  not  uttered  the  words  '  this  is  my 
body,'  yet  the  words,  Christ  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  prove 
that  his  body  and  blood  may  be  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  well  as 
everywhere  else."  ^  As  Christ  in  his  human  nature  and  therefore 
in  his  human  body  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  and  as  the 
right  hand  of  God  is  everywhere,  his  body  must  be  everywhere, 
and  therefore  in  the  bread  as  used  in  the  sacrament.  The  cur- 
rent representations,  however,  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  on 
this  point  are,  that  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  peculiar,  something  Avliich  occurs  there  and  no- 
where else.  This  presence  is  due,  not  to  the  words  of  consecra- 
tion as  uttered  by  the  minister,  but  to  the  almighty  power  which 

1  Dogmathche  Abhandlunrjen,  Bremen,  1870,  p.  455,  note. 

2  Das  dkse  Worte,  etc.,  §  118;  Works,  edit.  Walch's,  vol.  xx.  p.  1011. 


672  TART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

attended  the  original  utterance  of  the  words,  This  is  my  bcdy, 
and  continues  to  operate  whenever  and  wherever  tliis  sacrament 
is  administered. 

This  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in,  with,  and 
vinder  the  bread  and  wine  has  been  generally  expressed  by  non- 
Lutherans  by  the  word  consubstantiation,  as  distinguished  from 
the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  The  propriety  of 
this  word  to  express  the  doctrine  of  Luther  is  admitted  by  Phil- 
ippi,  if  it  be  understood  to  mean,  what  in  fact  is  meant  by  it 
when  used  by  the  Reformed,  "  das  reale  Zusammensein  beider 
Substanzen,"  ^.  e.,  the  real  coexistence  of  the  two  substances,  the 
earthly  and  the  heavenly.  But  Lutherans  generally  object  to  the 
word  because  it  is  often  used  to  express  the  idea  of  the  mixing 
two  substances  so  as  to  form  a  third  ;  or  the  local  inclusion  of  the 
one  substance  by  the  other.^ 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  mode  of  the  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist,  is  thus  carefully  stated  by  Ger- 
hard :  ^  "  Quam  vere  in  sacra  coena  pra^sens  est  res  terrena,  panis 
et  vinum  :  tam  vere  efciam  prsesens  res  coelestis,  corpus  et  sanguis 
Christi :  proinde  credimus,  docemus  et  confitemur  in  eucharistiaa 
Sacramento  veram,  realem  et  substantialem  corporis  et  sanguinis 
Christi  pm3sentiam,  exhibitionem,  manducationem  et  bibitionem, 
quae  prsesentia  non  est  essentialis  conversio  panis  in  corpus  et  vini 
in  sanguinem  Christi,  quam  transubstantionem  vocant,  neque  est 
corporis  ad  panem,  ac  sanguinis  ad  vinum  extra  usum  coentc  local- 
is  aut  durabilis,  neque  est  panis  et  corporis  Christi  personalis  unio, 
qualis  est  diviucTe  et  humane  naturai  in  Christo  unio,  neque 
est  localis  inclusio  corporis  in  j)anem,  neque  est  impanatio, 
neque  est  incorporatio  in  panem,  neque  est  consubstantio,  qua 
panis  cum  corpore  Christi,  et  vinum  cum  ipsius  sanguine  in 
unam  massam  physicam  coalescat :  neque  est  naturalis  inexis- 
tentia,  neque  delitescentia  corpusculi  sub  pane,  neque  quidquam 
liujusmodi  carnale  airt  physiciun ;  sed  est  pn-esentia  et  unio  sa- 
cramontalis,  qure  ita  comparata  est,  ut  juxta  ipsius  sulvatoris 
nostri,  veracis,  sapientis,  et  onniipotentis  institutionem,  pani 
benedicto  tanqiuim  medio  divinitus  ordinato  corpus:  etvinobene- 
dicto  tanquam  medio  itidem  divinitus  ordinato,  sanguis  Clu'isti 
modo  nobis  incomprehcnsibili  uniatur,  ut  mm  illo  pane  corpus 
Christi  una  niandncatione  sacrameutali  et  cum  illo  vino  sangui- 
nem Christi  una  bibitione  sacrameutali  in  sublimi  mystorio  suma- 


^  Philippi,  ut  siijirri,  vol.  v,  ]>.  350,  and  Krautli,  yt  siiprn,  pp.  130,  .3-30. 
2  John  Gerhard,  Loci  Theohujlci,  x.vii.  x.  §  09;  edit.  Ti'biiigeii.  fOD,  vol.  x.  pp,  116, 
117. 


I 


§  18.]    THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.      THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.    673 

mus,  manduceinus  ac  bibamus.  Breviter  non  aTrovauu'  absentiam, 
non  ii'ouirMi/  inexisteiitiain,  non  avi^ova-tuv  consubstantioneni,  non 
/x£7oijo-ttt/  transubstantionein,  sed  Trapuva-Lav  corporis  et  sanguinis 
Cliristi  in  sacra  coena  statuimus." 

The  whole  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  briefly  and  authoritatively  stated  in  the  "  Articuli  Visi- 
tatorii  "  issued  in  1592  for  the  Electorate  and  northern  provinces  of 
of  Saxony,  which  all  church  officers  and  teachers  were  required  to 
adopt.  The  first  Article  is  as  follows  :  "  Pura  et  vera  doctrina 
nostrarum  Ecclesiarum  de  Sacra  Coena.  (1.)  Quod  verba  Christi: 
Accipite  et  comedite,  hoc  est  corpus  meum  :  Bibite,  hie  est  sanguis 
meus  simpliciter,  et  secundum  literam,  sicut  sonant,  intelligenda 
sint.  (2.)  Quod  in  sacramento  dua?  res  sint,  qujc  exliibentur 
et  simul  accipiuntur :  una  terrena,  qase  est  panis  et  vinum ; 
et  una  coelestis,  qute  est  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi.  (3.)  Quod 
hsec  unio,  exhibitio  et  sumptio  fiat  hie  inferius  in  terris,  non  su- 
perius  in  coelis.  (4.)  Quod  exhibeatur  et  accipiatur  verum  et 
naturale  corpus  Christi,  quod  in  cruce  pependit,  et  verus  ac  natu- 
ralis  sanguis,  qui  ex  Christi  latere  fiuxit.  (5.)  Quod  corpus  et 
sanguis  Christi  non  fide  tantum  spiritualiter,  quod  etiani  extra 
coenani  fieri  potest,  sed  cum  pane  et  vino  oraliter,  modo  tamen 
imperscrutabili,  et  supernaturali,  illic  in  coena  accipiantur,  idque 
in  pignus  et  certificationem  resurrectionis  nostrorum  coi'porum  ex 
mortuis.  (G.)  Quod  oralis  perce2:)tio  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi 
non  solum  fiat  a  dignis,  verum  etiam  ab  indignis,  qui  sine  poeni- 
tentia  et  vera  fide  accedunt ;  eveiitu  tamen  diverso.  A  dignis 
enim  percipitur  ad  salutem,  ab  indignis  autem  ad  judicium."  ^ 

The  Benefit  received  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 

In  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Apology,  in  the  Shorter 
and  Larger  Catechism,  and  in  the  Form  of  Concord,  the  benefits 
conferred  upon  believers  in  this  sacrament  are  declared  to  be  for- 
giveness of  sin  and  confirmation  of  faith.  These  are  said  to  be  its 
special  nnd  intended  effects.  Thus  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  the 
question  is  asked,  "  Quid  vero  prodest,  sic  comedisse  et  bibisse  ?  " 
The  answer  is  "Id  indicant  hsec  verba  :  Pro  vobis  datur  ;  et :  ef- 
funditur  in  remissionem  peccatorum.  Nempe  nobis  per  verba  ilia 
m  sacramento  remissio  peccatorum,  vita,  justitia  et  salus  donen- 
tur.  Ubi  enim  remissio  peccatorum  est,  ibi  est  et  vita  et  salus." 
The  next  question  is,  "  Qui  potest  corporalis  ilia  manducatio  tan- 
tas  res    etiicere?"      To  which   the    following   answer  is   given: 

I  Hase,  Libri  SymboUd,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1846,  pp.  857,  858. 
VOL.  in.  43 


674         PART   III.     Ch.   XX.— the   means    OF   GRACE. 

"  Maiiducare  et  bibere  ista  certe  non  efficiunt,  sed  ilia  verba,  quae 
hie  ponuntur  :  Pro  vobis  datur,  et :  Eftunditur  in  remissionem 
peccatorum ;  qua;  verba  sunt  una  cum  corpoiaii  manducatione 
caput  et  summa  hujus  sacramenti.  Et  qui  credit  his  verbis,  ille 
habet,  quod  dicunt,  et  sicut  sonant,  nempe  reniissionem  peccato- 
rum." ^  To  the  same  effect  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  alter  refer- 
ring to  the  words  of  institution  it  is  said  that  in  coming  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  we  receive  tiie  remission  of  sins.  "  Qiiare  hoc  ?  Ideo, 
quod  verba  illic  extant  et  ha^c  dant  nobis.  Siquidem  propterea  a 
Christo  jubeor  edere  et  bibere,  ut  meum  sit,  mihique  utilitatem 
afferat,  veluti  certum  pignus  et  arrhabo,  inio  potius  res  ipsa,  quam 
pro  peccatis  meis,  morte  et  omnibus  malis  ille  opposuit  et  oppig- 
noravit.  Lide  jure  optimo  cibus  animae  dicitur,  novum  hominem 
alens  atque  fortificans."  ^ 

All  that  is  here  said  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  Reformed 
doctrine  both  as  to  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  this  sacrament 
and  as  to  the  source  from  which  those  benefits  are  to  be  received. 
The  believing  communicant  receives  at  the  Lord's  table  the  bene- 
fits of  his  redeeming  death,  and  his  faith  is  confirmed  by  the  di- 
vinely appointed  seals  and  pledge  of  the  promises  of  God.  And 
the  sacrament  has  these  effects,  because  through  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  worthy  communicant  embraces  by  faith  the  offer 
of  pardon  and  acceptance  made  in  the  ordinance.  This  implies 
the  ignoring  or  repudiation  of  the  idea  that  the  benefits  con- 
ferred are  to  be  attributed  to  any  magical  or  supernatural  in- 
fluence from  the  actual,  natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which, 
according  to  tlie  Lutheran  doctrine,  are  orally  received  in  this  or- 
dinance ;  or  to  a  divine  influence  emanating  from  the  glorified 
bod}''  of  Christ  in  heaven  ;  or  to  the  theanthropic  life  of  Christ 
conveyed  into  the  believer  as  a  new  organic  law.  Neverthe- 
less there  is  another  mode  of  representation  occurring  in  the  , 
writings  of  Lutlier  and  of  Lutherans.  According  to  this  repre-  I 
sentation  there  is  a  divine,  supernatural  power  inherent  in  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  being  received  in  tlie  Lord's 
Supper  conveys  to  the  believer,  as  to  his  soul  and  body,  a  new 
spiritual  and  iuuuortal  life.  Tims,  in  his  Larger  Catechism,  in 
answer  to  the  question  how  bread  and  wine  can  have  tlie  power 
attributed  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  says  it  is  not  bi-ead  as  such 
which  produces  the  effect,  "  but  such  bread  and  Avine  which  are 
the  body  and  blood    of    Christ,  and  wliich  have  the  words   [of 

1  V.  5-S;  Ilase,  Libri  Si/mbolici,  pp.  38  ,  332. 
-  V.  22,  23;  J/jid.  pp.  555,  556. 


§18.]    THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.      THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.     675 

institution]  connected  with  them."  To  this  lie  adds  :  "  Quin  etiam 
iUud  pro  certo  constat,  Christi  corpus  et  sanguinem  noquaquam 
rem  otiosam  et  infrugiferani  esse  posse,  quae  nihil  fructus  aut 
utilitatis  afferat."  ^  Luther's  Catechisms  have  symbolical  au- 
thority, having  been  adopted  by  the  whole  Lutheran  Church. 
The  same  authority  does  not  belong  to  his  private  writings,  in 
which  the  idea  advanced  of  the  life-giving  power  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  as  received  in  the  sacrament  is  (at  least  as 
often  understood)  more  fully  expanded.  In  his  work  entitled 
'  Das  diese  Worte  Christi,  '  das  ist  mein  Leib  u.  s.  w.,'  noch  fest 
stehen  wider  die  Schwarmgeister,"  published  in  1527,^  he  says 
Christ  gives  us  his  own  body  and  blood  as  food  "  in  order  that 
with  such  a  pledge  he  may  assure  and  comfort  us,  that  our  body 
shall  live  forever,  because  it  here  on  earth  enjoys  eternal  liv- 
ing food."-^  "  The  mouth,  which  corporeally  eats  Christ's  flesh, 
knows  not,  it  is  true,  what  it  eats,  but  the  heart  knows  :  by  itself 
it  would  gain  nothing,  for  it  cannot  comprehend  the  word  [of 
promise] .  But  the  heart  knows  well  what  the  mouth  eats.  For 
it  comprehends  the  word  and  eats  spix'itually,  what  the  mouth  eats 
corporeall3^"  But  since  the  mouth  is  a  member  of  the  heart,  it 
must  live  forever,  on  account  of  the  heart,  which  through  the 
word  lives  forever,  because  the  body  corporeally  eats  the  same 
everlasting  food,  which  the  soul  with  it  spiritually  eats.  Again  :  * 
"  The  heart  cannot  eat  corporeally,  and  the  mouth  cannot  eat 
spirituall3^  God,  however,  has  arranged  it,  that  the  mouth  eats 
for  the  heart  corporeally,  and  the  heart  eats  for  the  body  spirit- 
ually, so  both  are  satisfied  with  the  same  food  and  are  saved.  For 
the  body  having  no  understanding,  knows  not  that  it  eats  such 
food  whereby  it  shall  live  forever.  Because  it  feels  it  not,  but 
dies  and  moulders  away,  as  though  it  had  eaten  other  food,  as  an 
irrational  brute.  But  the  soul  sees  and  understands,  that  the 
body  nuist  live  forever,  because  it  is  a  partaker  of  an  everlasting 
food ;  which  will  not  allow  it  to  decay  and  waste  away  in  the 
grave."  ^  Still  more  strongly  is  this  idea  expressed  in  such  pas- 
sages as  the  following.     When  a  man  eats  this  food'^'  ''  it  changes 

1  V.  23-30;  TTase,  Lihrl  Sijmholic!,  p.  557. 

-  D  IS  diese  Worte,  etc.,  edit.  Wakli,  vol.  xx. 

3  Ibid,  §  18^,  p.  1045. 

*  Jhid,  p.  1040. 

5  I'liilippi,  Kircldtche  Gl'iuhenslehre,  vol.  v.  p.  i\u .  Pliilippi  nilniits  (lint  tliO'JC  ]iassa!^e» 
appoar  to  tuacli  that  tliu  seeds  of  immortality  are  implanted  in  the  bixlies  of  Iielievers  by 
the  corporeal  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  thongh  he  endeavours  to  explain  tliemas 
teachini;-  that  the  Lord's  Supper  i.s  a  pledge  of  the  believer's  resurrection.  ()u  p.  2J3,  how- 
ever, he  admits  that  there  are  other  passa.ges  which  oannot  be  thus  explained. 

0  Das  diese  Wurte,  §§  207,  208,  pp.  1055,  1056. 


676  TAUT   III.     Cii.   XX.  — THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

(verdiiut)  and  transmutes  his  flesh,  so  that  it  becomes  spiritual, 
that  is,  endued  witli  immortal  Ufa  and  blessed,  as  Paul,  1  Corinthi- 
ans XV.  44,  says  :  It  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  Luther  gives  what 
he  calls  a  gross  illustration.  He  supposes  a  wolf  to  devour  a  sheep 
and  the  flesh  of  the  sheep  to  have  power  enough  to  transmute  the 
wolf  into  a  sheep.  "  So  we,  when  we  eat  Christ's  flesh  corpo- 
really and  spiritually,  the  food  is  so  strong  that  it  changes  us  into 
itself,  so  that  out  of  carnal,  sinful,  mortal  men,  we  are  made  spir- 
itual, holy,  and  living  men  ;  such  we  already  are,  but  hidden  in 
faith  and  hope,  and  not  yet  rev-ealed ;  at  the  last  day  we  shall  see 
it."  Again :  ^  "  God  is  in  this  flesh.  It  is  divine  and  spiritual 
(a  weak  translation  of  ein  Gottesfleisch,  ein  Geistfleisch),  it  is  in 
God,  and  God  is  in  it,  therefore  it  is  living  and  gives  life  both  as 
to  soul  and  body  to  all  who  eat  it,"  Again :  ^  "If  we  eat  Him 
corporeall}^  so  He  is  in  us  corporeally,  and  we  in  Him.  He  is 
not  digested  and  assimilated,  but  He  continually  transmutes  us,  the 
soul  into  righteousness,  the  body  into  immortality."  After  quot- 
ing these  and  similar  passages,  Philippi  admits  that  they  teach 
that  "  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  only  the  pledge  of  our  resurrec- 
tion, but  also  that  it  is  the  life-giving,  operative  power  through 
.which  our  bodies  are  prepared  for  our  final  resurrection."  ^ 

There  were  two  views  of  the  benefit  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
the  mind  of  Luther.  He  commonly  represents  its  special  benefit 
to  be  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is  received  whenever  faith  in 
the  gospel  is  exercised.  This  effect  is  due,  not  to  what  is  in  the 
sacrament  received  by  the  mouth,  but  to  the  Word  as  received 
by  faith.  According  to  this  view,  as  Dorner  *  says,  the  Lord's 
supper  is  a  sign  and  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  To  this 
view,  he  adds,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  adhered.     Therefore,  the 

1  Das  rHese.  Worte,  p.  125.  ( ?)  "  Ibid,  p.  132.  ( V) 

8  See  riiilippi,  ut  sitpra,  p.  269.  So  also,  Gerhard,  Loci  Theologici,  xxii.  xi.  §  103; 
edit.  Tubingen,  1770,  vol.  x.  p.  175,  says  that  the  fathers  teach  that  our  bodies  "  suscipi- 
antex  coutaetii  caniis  Christi  vim  quandani  ad  Kloriosam  resurrcctioneni  et  vitani  :vteniain  ;  " 
an  opinion  to  which  Gerhard  accedes.  Calvin  {[nMitutio,  iv.  xvii.  32,  edit.  Uerlin,  1834, 
part  ii.  p.  42f;)  uses  lani;uage  of  similar  import:  "l)e  carnis  etiam  iiostne  imniortalitate 
secures  nos  reddat,  si(iuidem  ab  immortali  ejus  carnc  jam  vivilicatur  et  quodniiinindo  ejus 
immortalitato  conimiinicat."  There  is,  however,an  essential  difieronce,  as  to  this  point 
between  Luther  and  Calvin.  Luther  held  that  what  is  received  in  tlie  Supper  is  the  true, 
natural  body  of  Ciirist;  that  it  is  received  corporc'aliy,  by  the  mouth,  that  it  is  i-eccived  hy 
unbelievers  as  well  as  by  the  believers;  and  that  it  is  to  the  natural  body  thus  received, 
that  the  believer  owes  the  j^lorious  resurrection  that  awaits  him.  All  these  jioints  Calvin 
denies.  It  is  not  the  natural  body  of  Christ,  which  hung-  upon  the  cross,  that  is  received. 
It  is  not  received  corjioreally  by  the  mouth,  but  only  by  the  soul  through  faith  It  is  re- 
ceived out  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  well  as  in  that  ordinance  The  resurrection  of  believers, 
thcretore,  according  to  Calvin,  is  due  to  our  union  with  Christ,  effected  by  faith;  and  not 
to  eating  his  true,  natural  body. 

*  GeschiclUe  dtrprutestaiUinchen  Tlivulofjiv,  Munich,  ISU",  p.  152. 


p  19]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     ROMISH  DOCTRINE.  677 

Apology  saj^s  :  "  Idem  effectiis  est  verbi  et  ritus,  gicut  prseclare 
dictum  est  ab  Augustino,  sacramentum  esse  verbum  visibile,  quia 
ritus  oculis  accipitur,  et  est  quasi  pictura  verbi,  idem  significans, 
quod  verbum.     Quare  idem  est  utriusque  effectus."  ^ 

At  other  times,  however,  Luther,  as  appears  from  the  passages 
above  quoted,  attributes  to  tlie  Lord's  Supper  a  peculiar  effect 
due  to  the  real,  natural  body  of  Christ  therein  received,  which, 
in  virtue  of  its  union  with  his  divine  nature,  is  imbued  with  a  su- 
pernatural, life-giving  power.  To  this  power  he  refers  the  glo- 
rious future  resurrection  of  the  believer.  In  this  he  made  some 
approximation  to  the  modern  doctrine  that  the  redemptive  work 
of  Christ  consists  in  the  infusion  into  our  nature  of  a  new  force, 
or  organic  law  which,  by  a  process  of  natural,  historical  develop- 
ment, works  out  the  salvation  of  soul  and  body.  Julius  Miiller 
rejoices  that  this  view  did  not  take  root  in  the  Lutheran  Church, 
as  it  is,  as  he  says,  plainly  contrary  to  Scripture.  If  the  resur- 
rection of  believers  be  due  to  the  body  of  Christ  as  received  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  what  is  to  become  of  children,  of  confessors 
and  martyrs,  and  of  all  the  Old  Testament  saints,  who  never 
partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper.^ 

§  19.  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Romanists  regard  the  eucharist  under  two  distinct  aspects  as  a 
sacrament  and  as  a  sacrifice.  The  latter  in  their  system  is  by  far 
the  more  important.  Mohler  in  his  "  Symbolik  "  almost  entirely 
overlooks  its  sacramental  character.  And  in  the  worship  of  the 
Romish  Church  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  the  central  point. 
In  the  symbolical  books,  however,  the  two  views  are  kept  distinct. 
It  is  a  sacrament  inasmuch  as  it  signifies,  contains,  and  conveys 
grace.  It  includes  an  external  sign  and  things  signified.  The 
external  signs  are  bread  and  wine,  which  retain  their  form  after 
consecration  and  after  the  change  in  their  substance  thereby 
Effected.  The  things  signified  are,  (1.)  The  passion  of  Christ. 
(2.)  The  grace  of  God  given  in  the  sacrament.  (3.)  Eternal 
life.3  It  has  virtue  to  produce  grace.  "  On  voit,"  says  Cardinal 
Gousset  in  the  place  referred  to,  "  que  le  signe  eucharistique  est 
un  signe  qui  a  la  vertu  de  produire  la  grace  ;  mais  il  n'a  cette 
vertu  que  par  I'iustitution  de  Jesus  Christ." 

The  grace  bestowed  is  not  spiritual  life,  for  that  is  communi- 

1  VII.  5;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  201 

2  Dogmntische  Abhandlungen,  pp.  417,  418. 

8  Theoloffie  Dof/mnfique.     Par  S.  i..  Le  Cardinal  Gousset,  Archeveque  de  Reims.     Be 
fEucharistie  i.  i.  695,  10th  edit.  Paris,  1866,  vol.  ii.  p.  452. 


678    PART  III.  Ch.  XX. —the  means  OF  GRACE. 

cated  in  baptism,  and  is  presupposed  in  those  who  receive  the 
eucharist  as  a  sacrament.  On  this  point  the  Language  of  the  Ro- 
man Catechism  and  other  Roman  authorities  is  explicit,  and  in 
tone  evangehcal  and  Protestant.  Thus  the  Catechism  says, 
"  Constat  quemadmodum  mortuis  corporibus  naturale  ahmentum 
nihil  prodest,  ita  etiam  animse,  quse  spiritu  non  vivit,  sacra  mys- 
teria  non  prodesse,  ac  propterea  panis,  et  vini  speciem  liabent,  ut 
significetur,  non  quidem  revocanda)  ad  vitam  anima?,  sed  in  vita 
conservandae  causa  instituta  esse."  ^  The  benefits  received  are 
analogous  to  those  which  the  body  receives  from  its  natural  food. 
Bread  and  wine  strengthen  and  refresh  the  body ;  so  the  eucharist 
strengthens  and  refreshes  the  soul.  And  more  than  this,  the  food 
of  the  body  is  transmuted  into  the  body ;  whereas  the  divine 
food  received  in  this  sacrament  transmutes  the  soul  into  its  own 
nature.  "  Neque  enim  hoc  sacramentum  in  substantiam  nostram, 
ut  panis,  et  vinum,  mutatur  ;  sed  nos  quodam  modo  in  ejus  na- 
turam  convertimur  :  ut  recte  illud  D.  Augustini  ad  liunc  locum 
transferri  possit :  -  '  Cibus  sum  grandium  ;  cresce,  et  manducabis 
me.  Nee  tu  me  in  te  mutabis,  sicut  cibum  carnis  tuae ;  sed  tii 
mutaberis  in  me.'  "  ^ 

Lutherans  make  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  a  blessing  which  the 
believer  constantly  needs,  the  great  benefit  of  this  ordinance. 
This  is  not  its  design  in  the  view  of  Romanists,  for  they  teach 
that  for  a  man  to  approach  the  altar  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin,  is  a 
di'eadful  profanation.  They  enjoin,  therefore,  confession  and  ab- 
solution in  the  sacrament  of  penance,  as  a  necessary  preparation 
for  this  ordinance.  Only  venial  sins  are  remitted  by  receiving 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Nevertheless,  as  according 
to  Romanists,  Christ  is  really  in  both  natures  present  in  the  eu- 
charist, they  say  "  necessario  fons  omnium  gratiarum  dicenda  est, 
cum  fontem  ipsum  coelestium  charismatum,  et  donorum,  omnium- 
que  sacramentorum  auctorem  Christum  dominum  admirabili  modo 
in  se  contineat."  *  The  virtue  of  the  eucharist,  both  as  a  sacra- 
ment and  as  a  sacrifice,  rests,  according  to  Romanists,  in  the  doc- 
trine of 

TransuhstantiatAon. 

Christ  is  present  in  this  ordinance,  not  spiritually  as  taught  by 
the  Reformed,  nor  by  the  real  presence  of  his  body  and  blood  in, 
with,  and  under  the  bread  and  wine,  but  by  the  bread  and  wine 

1  Calec/iismus  liomanus,  ii.  iv.  qiuvst.  40  [GO,  li.];  Streitwolf,  Giittingcn,  1340,  vol.  i.  p 
844. 

2  Cnnfesxionum,  \ix.  x.  10;    Works,  edit.  IJenedictines,  Paris,  1830,  vol.  i.  p.  241,  c. 
*  Cateclilsmus  Itomanus,  ut  supra,  quaest.  39 ;  p.  343.  *  Ibid.  p.  342. 


§19.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     ROMISH   DOCTRINE.  67'J 

being  b}^  the  almighty  power  of  God  changed  into  his  body  and 
blood.  As  at  the  feast  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  the  water  was  changed 
into  wine,  so  in  the  eucharist,  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed 
into,  and  remain  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  doctrine  is 
thus  set  forth  in  the  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent :  — 

"  1.  Si  quis  negaverit,  in  sanctissimae  eucharistiffi  sacramento 
contineri  vere,  realiter,  et  substantialiter  corpus  et  sanguinem  una 
cum  anima,  et  divinitate  Domini  nostri,  Jesu  Christi,  ac  proinde 
totuni  Christum,  sed  dixerit  tantummodo  esse  in  eo,  ut  in  signo, 
Yel  figura  ant  virtute ;  anathema  sit. 

"  2.  Si  quis  dixerit  in  sacrosancto  eucharistise  sacramento  rema- 
nere  substantiam  panis,  et  vini,  una  cum  corpore  et  sanguine 
Domini  nostri,  Jesu  Christi,  negaveritque  mirabilem  illam  et  sin- 
gularem  conversionem  totius  substantia  panis  in  corpus,  et  totius 
substantijB  vini  in  sanguinem,  manentibus  duntaxat  speciebus 
panis,  et  vini,  quam  quidem  conversionem  catholica  ecclesia  aptis- 
sime  transubstantionem  appellat ;  anathema  sit. 

"  3.  Si  quis  negaverit,  in  venerabih  sacramento  eucharistias  sub 
unaquaque  specie,  et  sub  singulis  cujusque  speciei  partibus,  sepa- 
ratione  facta,  totum  Christum  contineri ;  anathema  sit. 

"4.  Si  quis  dixerit,  peracta  consecratione,  in  admirabih  eu- 
charistiaj  sacramento  non  esse  corpus,  et  sanguinem  Dommi  nostri 
Jesu  Christi,  sed  tantum  in  usu  dum  sumitur,  non  autem  ante,  vel 
post ;  et  in  hostiis,  sen  particulis  consecratis,  qujB  post  communi- 
onem  reservantur,  vel  supersunt,  non  remanere  verum  corpus 
Domini  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  5.  Si  quis  dixerit,  vel  pr^cipuum  fructum  sanctissimas  eu- 
charistise  esse  remissionem  peccatorum,  vel  ex  ea  non  aUos  effec- 
tus  pro  venire  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  6.  Si  quis  dixerit,  in  sancto  eucharistiee  sacramento  Chris- 
tum, unigenitum  Dei  filium,  non  esse  cultu  latriaj,  etiam  externo, 
adorandum  ;  atque  ideo  nee  festiva  peculiari  celebritate  veneran- 
dum  ;  neque  in  processionibus,  secundum  laudabilem,  et  univer- 
salem  ecclesiaj  ritum,  et  consuetudineni,  solemniter  circumgestan- 
dum,  vel  non  publice,  ut  adoretur,  populo  proponendum,  et  ejus 
adoratores  esse  idololatras  ;  anathema  sit. 

"7.  Si  quis  dixerit,  non  licere  sacram  eucharistiam  in  sacrario 
reservari,  sed  statim  post  consecrationem  adstantibus  necessario 
distribuendam,  aut  non  licere,  ut  ilia  ad  infirmos  honorifice  defer- 
atur ;  anathema  sit. 

"  8.  Si  quis  dixerit,  Christum,  in  eueharistia  exhibitum,  spirit- 
ualiter  tantum  manducari,  et  non  etiam  sacramentaliter,  et  reali- 
ter ;  anathema  sit. 


680       PART  m.    ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

"9.  Si  quis  negaverit,  omnes,  et  singulos  Christi  fi deles  utrius- 
que  sexus,  cum  ad  annos  diseretionis  perveiierint,  teneri  singulis 
annis,  saltern  in  paschate,  ad  communicandum,  juxta  prseceptum 
sanct^e  matris  ecclesiae  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  10.  Si  quis  dixerit,  non  licere  sacerdoti  celebranti  seipsum 
communicare ;  anathema  sit. 

"  11.  Si  quis  dixerit,  solam  fidem  esse  sufficientem  prtepara- 
tionem  ad  sumendum  sanctissimaj  eucharistijia  saeramentum ; 
anathema  sit.  Et  ne  tantum  saeramentum  indigne  atque  ideo  in 
mortem,  condemnationem  sumatur,  statuit,  atque  declaret  ipsa 
sancta  synodus,  illis,  quos  conscientia  peccati  mortalis  gravat, 
quantumcunque  etiam  se  contritos  existiment,  habita  eopia  con- 
fessoris,  necessario  praemittendam  esse  confessionem  sacramenta- 
lem.  Si  quis  autem  contrarium  docere,  praedicare,  vel  pertinaciter 
asserere,  seu  etiam  publice  disputando  defendere  prffisumpserit  eo 
ipso  excommunicatus  existat."  ^ 

From  this  statement  it  ajDpears,  first,  as  concerns  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine,  that  in  and  by  the  act  of  consecration,  their 
whole  substance  is  changed.  Nothing  of  the  substance  or  essence 
of  either  remains.  The  accidents,  or  sensible  properties,  how- 
ever, continue  as  they  were.  The  form,  colour,  taste,  odour,  the 
specific  gravity,  their  chemical  afiinities,  and  their  nutritive  qual- 
ities remain  the  same.  So  far  as  the  senses,  chemical  analysis, 
and  physics  are  concerned  or  are  to  be  trusted,  no  change  has 
taken  place.  As  the  sensible  properties  of  the  bread  and  wine  do 
not  and  cannot  inhere  in  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood, 
and  as  their  own  substance  no  longer  exists,  those  properties  do 
not  inhere  in  any  substance.  "  Cum  antea  demonstratum  sit,  cor- 
pus Domini,  et  sanguinem  vere  in  sacramento  esse,  ita  nulla  am- 
plius  subsit  panis,  et  vini  substantia  ;  quoniam  ea  accidentia 
Christi  corpori,  et  sanguini  inhaerere  non  possunt :  relinquitur,  ut 
supra  omnem  naturte  ordinem  ipsa  se,  nulla  aha  re  nisa,  sustentent, 
haec  perpetua,  et  constans  fuit  catholicixi  Ecclesiae  doctrina."  '^ 

Secondly,  as  to  what  is  said  to  be  present  under  the  species  of 
bread  and  wine,  it  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  the  body 
which  hung  upon  the  cross  ;  the  blood  which  flowed  from  his  side  ; 
with  tlie  nerves,  bones,  and  whatever  pertains  to  the  completeness 
of  man.  ("  Ossa,  nervi,  et  qu:ccumque  ad  hominis  perfectionem 
pertinent.")  '^  As,  however,  the  body  of  Christ  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  his  soul,  so  that  where  the  one  is,  the  other  must  be ; 

1  Conncll  of  Trent,  Sess.  xiii.  canones;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  50-52. 

2  Catec/iismus  Romanus,  ii.  iv.  qusest.  37  [45,  xliv.];  Ibid.  p.  341. 
»  Ibid,  quscst.  27  [33,  xxxi.],  p.  333. 


§19.]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     ROMISH   DOCTRINE.  681 

md  as  his  soul  is  in  like  manner  connected  with  his  divinity,  it 
follows  that  the  whole  Christ,  body,  soul,  and  divinity,  is  present, 
and  is  received  orally,  i.  «.,  by  the  mouth,  by  the  communicant. 
"  Docere  autem  oportet,  Christum  nomen  esse  Dei,  et  hominis, 
unius  scilicet  personae,  in  qua  divina,  et  humana  natura  conjuncta 
sit,  quare  utramque  substantiam,  et  qua3  utriusque  substantias  con- 
sequentia  sunt,  divinitatem,  et  totam  humanam  naturam,  quje  ex- 
anima,  et  omnibus  corporis  partibus,  et  sanguine  etiam  constat, 
complectitur :  qua?  omnia  in  Sacramento  esse  credendum  est,  nam 
cum  in  coelo  tota  hiimanitas  divinitati,  in  una  persona,  et  hypos- 
tasi  conjuncta  sit,  nefas  est  suspicari,  corpus,  quod  in  sacramento 
mest,  ab  eadem  divinitate  sejunctum  esse."  ^ 

Thirdly,  the  whole  Christ  is  in  the  bread  and  the  whole  Clirist 
is  in  the  wine  :  ^  and  not  only  so,  but  in  each  and  every  particle 
of  both  species.  Thus  the  Catechism,  says  "  non  solum  in  utra- 
que  specie,  sed  in  quavis  utriusque  specie!  particula  totum  Chris- 
tum contineri." 

Fourthly,  Lutherans  teach  that  the  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in,  with,  and  under  the  bread  and  wine,  is  con- 
fined to  the  time  of  the  administration  of  the  sacrament.  Ro- 
manists, on  the  other  hand,  teach  that  as  there  is  an  entire 
change  of  the  substance  of  the  elements  into  the  substance  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  change  is  permanent.  From  this 
it  is  inferred,  (1.)  That  the  consecrated  wafer  as  containing 
the  whole  Christ,  may  be  preserved.  (2.)  That  it  may  be  carried 
to  the  sick.  (3.)  That  it  may  be  borne  about  in  processions. 
(4.)  That  it  should  be  adored. 

It  is  well  known  that  Romanists  distinguish  between  the  "  cul- 
tus  civilis,"  or  worship  (^'.  e.^  respect)  due  to  our  superiors  among 
men  ;  SouXet'a,  due  to  saints  and  angels  ;  vTrep^.ivXeia^  due  to  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  and  Xarpua,  due  to  God  alone.  The  ground  of  this 
worship  is  the  real  or  supposed  possession  of  divine  perfections  in 
its  object.  When  our  Lord  was  upon  the  earth  He  was  the  proper 
object  of  this  divine  worship,  because  He  was  God  manifested  in 
the  flesh.  The  worship  terminated  on  the  person  ;  and  that  per- 
son is  and  was  divine.  If  Christians  err  in  believing  that  the 
person  known  in  history  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  was,  and  is  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God  clothed  in  our  nature,  then  their  worship  of 
Him  is  idolatry.     They  ascribe  divine  perfections  and  render  di- 

1  CatecMsmus  Rovirinus,  ut  supra,  quaest.  27  [33,  xxxi.],  p.  334. 

2  Romanists  teach  that  even  after  consecration,  it  is  proper  to  call  the  elements  bread 
and  wine,  because,  although  the  substance  is  changed,  the  accidents  of  bread  and  wine 
remain.     CatecMsmus  Romanus,  ut  supra,  qusest,  30  [xxxv.  36],  p.  335. 


682  PART  III.     Ch.  XX.  — the   means   of    GRACE. 

■vine  honours  to  a  creature,  and  therein  consists  the  essence  of  idol- 
atry. In  Uke  manner  Romanists  teacli  that  Aarpeia,  the  worship 
due  to  God  alone,  is  to  be  rendered  to  the  host,  or  consecrated 
"wafer.  This  worship,  of  course,  is  not  rendered  to  the  wafer 
as  such,  any  more  than  the  worship  of  Christians  was  rendered 
to  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  He  Avas  here  on  earth. 
But  Romanists  worship  the  host  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  with  which  his  soul  and  divinity  are  inseparably 
connected.  If  their  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  be  false  ;  if 
the  host  be  no  more  the  body  of  Christ  than  any  other  piece  of 
bread  ;  if  his  soul  and  divinity  be  no  more  present  in  it  than  in 
other  bread,  then  they  must  admit  that  the  worship  of  the  host 
is  as  pure  and  simple  idolatry  as  the  world  has  ever  seen.  As 
all  Protestants  believe  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  to  be 
utterly  unscriptural  and  false,  they  are  unanimous  in  pronouncing 
the  worship  of  the  consecrated  elements  to  be  idolatry. 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  arguments  urged  by  Romanists  in  support  of  the  fearful 
dogma  of  transubstantiation,  are  derived  partly  from  Scripture 
and  partly  from  tradition.  Without  the  latter,  the  former,  to  all 
appearance,  even  in  the  estimation  of  Romanists  themselves, 
would  be  of  little  account.  The  Scriptural  passage  principally 
relied  upon,  is  John  vi.  48-65.  As  to  this  discourse  of  our 
Lord,  Cardinal  Gousset  lays  down  two  propositions :  first,  that 
it  is  to  be  understood  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  second,  that  the 
eating  of  which  it  speaks  is  oral,  by  the  mouth,  and  not  merely 
spiritual,  by  faith.  If  these  points  be  granted,  then  it  follows 
that  our  Lord  does  speak  of  a  literal  eating  of  his  flesh,  and 
therefore  that  his  flesh  must  be  in  the  Uteral  sense  of  the  words 
eaten  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  Such  eating  it  must  be  conceded 
necessitates  the  admission  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 
It  is  enough,  in  this  place,  to  say  of  this  argument,  that  it  proves 
too  much.  Our  Lord  expressly  declares  that  the  eating  of  which 
He  speaks  is  essential  to  salvation.  If,  therefore,  his  words  -are 
to  be  understood  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  a  participation  in 
that  sacrament  is  essential  to  salvation.  But  this  the  Church 
of  Rome  explicitly  denies,  and  must  in  consistency  with  its  whole 
system,  insist  on  denying.  Romanists  teach  that  spiritual  life  is  as 
necessary  to  an  experience  of  the  benefits  of  this  sacrament,  as 
natural  life  is  to  the  body's  being  nourished  by  food.^ 

1  Catechismus  Romanus,  ii.  iv.  40  [li.  50],  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  p.  344. 


§  19. J  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     ROMISH  DOCTRINE.  683 

Tliey  further  teach  that  baptism,  which  precedes  the  eucharist, 
conveys  all  the  saving  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption  ;  they  there- 
fore cannot  make  the  eucharist  essential,  and  consequently  they 
cannot,  without  contradicting  Christ  or  themselves,  interpret  John 
vi.  48-G5  as  referring  to  the  Lord's  Supper.^ 

Appeal,  of  course,  is  also  made  to  the  words  of  institution,  "  This 
is  my  body."  In  this  argument  enough  has  already  been  said. 
There  is  no  more  necessity  for  understanding  those  words  liter- 
ally than  the  declaration  of  Christ,  "  I  am  the  true  bread,"  or, 
"  I  am  the  door."  The  elements  are  declared  to  be  bread  and 
wine  both  by  Christ  and  by  the  Apostles,  after  as  well  as  before 
consecration. 

Romanists,  however,  teach  that  there  are  many  doctrines  whicli 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  taught,  which  are  either  not  revealed  at 
all,  or  but  very  imperfectly  in  Scripture,  and  which  are  to  be  re- 
ceived on  the  authority  of  tradition.  On  that  authority  they 
rely  for  the  support  of  all  their  peculiar  doctrines.  As  to  that 
argument,  as  urged  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  Protestants  say,  first,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and,  therefore,  that  no  doctrine, 
which  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Bible,  can  be  received  as  an 
article  of  faith.  And  as  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  can- 
not be  so  proved,  it  is  to  be  rejected  as  a  mere  human  theory. 
And,  secondly,  that  even  admitting  the  authority  of  tradition,  it 
can  be  demonstrated  that  the  doctrine  in  question  has  no  claim 
to  support  from  the  rule,  "  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab 
omnibus."  The  rise  and  gradual  development  of  this  doctrine 
can  be  historically  traced.  The  conflicts  attending  its  introduc- 
tion as  an  article  of  faith  are  matters  of  record,  and  it  can  no 
more  be  proved,  even  by  tradition,  than  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory and  extreme  unction.  This  is  the  conclusion  reached  after 
years  of  controversy,  and  it  is  not  likely  ever  to  be  shaken.  It 
was  on  this  point  that  the  leading  divines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land laid  out  their  strength  in  their  controversy  with  the  Church 
of  Rome. 2 

It  is  a  valid  objection  to  this  doctrine  that  it  involves  an  im 

l"Le  sacremeut  de  reucharlstie  n'est  point  n^cessaire  au  salut,  d'une  necessit<5  de 
moyen;  on  pent  etre  sauv^  sans  avoir  re^n  la  communion.  La  raison,  c'est  que  ^e  sacre- 
ment  n'a  point  ('{6  institud  comnie  moyen  de  conftrer  la  premiere  grace  sanctifiante  ou  de 
remettre  le  pc'che  mortel,  ce  qui  est  r^servd  aux  sacraments  de  bapteme  et  de  penitence." 
Gousset,  Theohifi'ie,  Paris,  1866,  vol.  ii.  p.  516. 

2  In  Ilerzog's  Rtal-EncyklopMie,  vol.  xvi.,  there  is,  under  the  head  of  "  Transubstait- 
tiation,"  an  elaborate  article  of  fifty-five  royal  octavo  pages  on  the  history  of  this  doctrinp, 
in  which  its  rise  through  the  patristical  and  medieval  periods  is  minutely  traced. 


684  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

possibility.  The  impossible  cannot  be  tiaie,  and,  therefore,  can- 
not, rationally,  be  an  object  of  faith.  It  is  impossible  that  the 
accidents  or  sensible  properties  of  the  bread  and  wine  should  re- 
main if  the  substance  be  changed.  Such  a  proposition  has  no 
more  meaning  in  it  than  the  assertion  that  an  act  can  be  without 
an  agent.  Accidents  or  properties  are  the  phenomena  of  sub- 
stance ;  and  it  is  self-evident  that  there  can  be  no  manifestations 
where  there  is  not  something  to  be  manifested.  In  other  words 
nothing,  a  "  non-ens  "  cannot  manifest  itself.  Romanists  cannot 
turn  to  the  theory  that  matter  is  not  a  substance  ;  for  that  is  not 
their  doctrine.  On  the  contrary,  they  assert  that  the  substance 
of  the  bread  is  transmuted  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  body. 
Nor  can  they  help  themselves  by  resorting  to  the  pantheistic  doc- 
trine that  all  accidents  are  phenomena  of  God,  for  that  would  up- 
set their  whole  system. 

It  is  moreover  impossible  that  the  well-attested  testimony  of 
our  senses  should  be  deceptive.  If  it  once  be  assumed  that  we 
cannot  trust  to  the  laws  of  belief  impressed  on  our  nature,  of 
which  faith  in  our  sense  perceptions  is  one  of  the  most  important, 
then  the  foundation  of  all  knowledge,  faith,  and  religion  is  over- 
turned. What  has  Catholicism  to  say  for  itself,  if  the  people 
cannot  trust  their  ears  Avhen  they  hear  the  teachings  of  the 
Church,  or  their  eyes  when  they  read  its  decrees  ?  It  has  nothing 
to  stand  upon.  It  is  engulfed  with  all  things  else  in  the  abyss  of 
nihilism.  To  believe  in  transubstantiation  we  must  disbelieve 
our  senses,  and  this  God  requires  of  no  man.  It  involves  disbelief 
in  Him  who  is  the  author  of  our  nature  and  of  the  laws  which 
are  impressed  upon  it.  There  is  no  more  complete  and  destruc- 
tive infidelity  than  the  want  of  faith  in  the  veracity  of  conscious- 
ness, whether  it  be  consciousness  of  our  sense  perceptions,  or  of 
the  truths  involved  in  our  rational,  moral,  or  religious  nature. 

It  is  another  objection  to  this  doctrine  that  it  logically  leads, 
and  in  fact  has  led,  to  the  greatest  practical  evils.  It  has  led  to 
superstitious,  in  the  place  of  rational  and  Scriptural  reverence  for 
the  sacrament ;  to  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  consecrated  Avafer ; 
to  attributing  to  it  magical,  or  supernatural  virtue  contrary  to 
Scripture  ;  to  perverting  a  simple  sacrament  into  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice,  and  to  investing  the  ministers  of  Christ  with  the  char- 
acter of  sacrificing  priests,  empowered  to  offer,  for  money,  a  pro- 
pitiatory oblation  securing  forgiveness  even  for  the  sins  of  the  de- 
parted. It  has  been  made  a  mine  of  wealth  to  the  priesthood 
and  the  Church.     It  was  principally  the  popular  belief   in  this 


§19.]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     ROMISH   DOCTRINE.  685 

great  error,  that  secured  the  transfer  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
land  and  wealth  of  Europe  into  the  hands  of  the  clergy  and  gave 
them  almost  unlimited  power  over  the  people. 

Withholding  the  Cup  from  the  Laity. 

The  Romish  Church  admits  that  this  is  contrary  to  the  original 
institution  of  the  ordinance,  and  to  the  usage  of  the  primitive 
Church.  It  is  defended,  (1.)  On  the  ground  that  the  cup  is  un- 
necessary to  the  completeness  of  the  sacrament.  The  blood  is  in 
the  body  ;  he  therefore  who  receives  the  latter  receives  the  former. 
And  as  the  whole  Christ,  as  to  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity  is  not 
only  in  each  species,  but  in  every  particle  of  both,  he  who  re- 
ceives the  consecrated  bread  receives  the  whole  Christ,  and  de- 
rives all  the  benefit  from  communing,  the  sacrament  is  capable  of 
affording.  (2.)  That  there  is  great  danger  in  passing  the  cup 
from  one  communicant  to  another  that  a  portion  of  its  contents 
shoidd  be  spilt ;  and  as  the  cup  after  consecration  contains  the 
real  blood  of  Christ,  its  falling  to  the  ground  and  being  trod- 
den under  foot,  is  a  profanation,  by  every  means  to  be  avoided. 
(3.)  The  Church  did  not  of  its  own  motion  introduce  this  innova- 
tion. It  was  introduced  and  had  become  general,  before  the  Chiu'ch 
saw  fit,  for  sufficient  reasons,  to  mterfere  and  change  a  custom  into 
a  law. 

The  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Sacrifice. 

On  this  subject  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches,  according  to  the 
Council  of  Trent,  — 

"  1.  Si  quis  dixerit,  in  missa  non  offerri  Deo  verum,  et  proprium 
sacrificium ;  aut  quod  offerri  non  sit  aliud,  quam  nobis  Christum 
ad  manducandum  dari ;  anathema  sit. 

"  2.  Si  quis  dixerit,  illis  verbis,  '  Hoc  facite  in  meam  com- 
memorationem  ; '  Christum  non  instituisse  Apostolos  sacerdotes  ; 
aut  non  ordinasse,  ut  ipsi,  aliique  sacerdotes  offerent  corpus,  et 
sanguinem  suum  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  3.  Si  quis  dixerit,  missae  sacrificium  tantum  esse  laudis,  et 
gratiarum  actionis,  aut  nudum  commemorationem  sacrificii  in 
cruce  peracti,  non  autem  propitiatorium  ;  vel  soli  prodesse  su- 
menti  ;  neque  pro  vivis,  et  defunctis,  pro  peccatis,  paniis,  satis- 
factionibus,  et  aliis  necessitatibus  offerri  debere  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  4.  Si  quis  dixerit,  blasphemiam  irrogari  sanctisslmo  Christi 
sacrificio,  in  cruce  peracto,  per  missa?  sacrificium  ;  aut  illi  per  hoc 
derogari ;  anathema  sit. 

"  5.  Si  quis  dixerit,  imposturam  esse,  raissas  celebrare  in  liono- 


686  PART  m.     Ca.   XX.  —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

rem  sanctorum,  et  pro  illorum  intercessione,  apud  Deum  obtinenda, 
sicut  ecclesia  intendit ;  anathema  sit. 

"6.  Si  quis  dixerit,  can  ones  missas  en-ores  continere,  ideoque 
abrogandum ;  anathema  sit. 

"7.  Si  quis  dixerit,  caaremonias,  vestes,  et  externa  signa,  quibus 
in  missarum  celebratione  ecclesia  catholica  utitur,  irritabula  im- 
pietatis  esse,  magis  quam  officia  pietatis  ;  anathema  sit. 

"  8.  Si  quis  dixerit,  missas,  in  quibus  solus  sacerdos  sacra- 
mentaliter  communicat,  illicitas  esse,  ideoque  abrogandas  ;  anathe- 
ma sit. 

"  9.  Si  quis  dixerit,  ecclesiae  Romanse  ritum,  quo  summissa 
voce  pars  canonis,  et  verba  consecrationis  proferuntur,  damnandum 
esse ;  aut  luigua  tantum  vulgari  missam  celebrari  debere  ;  aut 
aquam  non  miscendam  esse  vino  in  calice  offerendo,  eo  quod  sit 
contra  Christi  institutionem  ;  anathema  sit."  ^ 

From  this  it  appears,  — 

1.  That,  according  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  eucharist  is  a 
real,  propitiatory  sacrifice,  for  the  expiation  of  sin,  for  reconciUa- 
tion  with  God,  and  for  securing  providential  and  gracious  bless- 
ings from  his  hands. 

2.  That  what  is  ojffered  is  Cln-ist,  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity, 
all  which  are  present  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine.  The 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  the  same,  therefore,  as  the  sacrifice  of 
the  cross ;  the  former  being  a  constant  repetition  of  the  latter. 
"  Unum  itaque  et  idem  sacrificium  esse  fatemur,  et  liaberi  debet, 
quod  in  missa  peragitur,  et  quod  in  cruce  ob latum  est :  quemad- 
modum  una  est  et  eadem  hostia  Christus,  videlicet  Dominus  noster, 
qui  se  ipsum  in  ara  crucis  semel  tantummodo  cruentum  immo- 
lavit.  Neque  enim  cruenta,  et  incruenta  hostia,  duiB  sunt  hostiae, 
sed  una  tantum,  cujus  sacrificium,  postquam  Dominus  ita  prae- 
cepit,  '  Hoc  facite  in  meam  commemorationem,'  in  eucharistia 
quotidie  instauratur."  ^ 

3.  As  the  sacrifice  is  the  same,  so  also  is  the  priest.  Christ 
offered  Himself  once  on  the  cross,  and  He  offers  Himself  daily  in 
the  mass.  "  Sed  unus  etiam  atque  idem  sacerdos  est  Christus 
dominus,  nam  ministri,  qui  sacrificium  faciunt,  non  snain,  sed 
Christi  personam  suscipiunt,  cum  ejus  corpus  et  sangiiinem  con- 
ficiunt,  id  quod  et  ipsius  consecrationis  verbis  ostenditur,  neque 
enim  sacerdos  inquit.  Hoc  est  corpus  Christi,  sed,  '  Hoc  est  corpus 
meum : '  personam  videlicet  Christi  domini  gerens,  panis,  et  villi 

1  Se?s.  xxii.  canones;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  81,  82. 

2  Cattcnismus  Romanus,  par.  ii.  cap.  iv.  quiust.  CO  [Ixxxii.  70],  Ibid.  p.  359. 


§  19.]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER,     ROMISH   DOCTRINE.  687 

substantiam,  in  veram  ejus  corporis,  et  sanguinis  substantiam 
convertit."  ^  On  this  statement  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing, 
that  if  the  ministers  are  not  the  real  offerers,  they  are  not  real 
priests.  A  priest  is  one  appointed  to  offer  sacrifices.  But  ac- 
cording to  the  theory,  the  officiating  minister  in  the  service  of  the 
mass,  does  not  offer  the  sacrifice.  He  is  a  supernumerary.  He 
has  no  function.  There  is  no  reason  why  without  his  interven- 
tion, Clirist  should  not  when  his  people  meet  to  commemorate  his 
death,  offer  Himself  anew  to  God.  The  Roman  theory  in  this, 
as  in  many  other  points,  is  not  self-consistent.  Romanists  repre- 
sent ministers  as  true  priests ;  mediators  between  God  and  the 
people,  without  whose  intervention,  no  sinner  can  have  access  to 
God  or  obtain  pardon  or  acceptance.  They  are  not  only  invested 
with  priestly  authority  and  prerogatives,  but  imbued  with  super- 
natural power.  The  words  of  consecration  pronounced  by  other 
than  sacerdotal  lips,  are  inoperative.  The  mass  unless  performed 
by  a  priest  is  no  sacrifice.  All  this  supposes  that  their  office  is  a 
reality,  that  ministers  are  really  priests ;  but  according  to  the 
passage  just  quoted,  they  are  not  priests  at  all.  According  to 
the  common  mode  of  representation,  however,  the  minister  in 
the  mass  as  truly  offers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  as  the 
priests  under  the  Old  Testament  offered  the  blood  of  lambs  or  of 
goats.  Cardinal  Gousset,  for  example,  says :  "  According  to  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice  of  the  new 
law,  in  which  the  priest  offers  to  God  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine.  The  mass  is  a  true  sac- 
rifice instituted  by  Jesus  Christ."  "  A  sacrifice,  from  its  nature, 
is  an  act  of  supreme  worship,  due  to  God  alone.  Hence  when  a 
mass  is  celebrated  in  the  name  of  a  saint,  it  is  not  to  be  believed 
that  the  sacrifice  is  offered  to  the  saint ;  but  simply  in  his  mem- 
ory, to  implore  his  protection,  and  to  secure  his  intercession.  It 
is  a  sacrifice  in  which  is  offered  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
Jesus  Christ,  whose  body  and  blood  are  present  under  the  forms 
of  bread  and  wine,  is  Himself  the  victim.  Finally,  the  eucha- 
ristic  sacrifice  is  made  by  the  hands  of  the  priest,  but  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  principal  minister  ;  He  is  at  once  priest  and  victim,  offer- 
ing himself  to  God  the  Father  by  theministry  of  his  priests."^ 

4.  As  under  the  Old  Testament  some  of  the  sin  offerings 
availed  for  those  who  brought  the  victims,  and  for  whose  benefit 
they  Avere  ott'ered  ;  and  others,  as  the  morning  and  evening  sacri- 

1  Catechtsnn(s  Romanus,  ii.  iv.  quasst.  Gl  [Ixxxiii.  77],  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  .j59,  360. 
*  Gousset,  Thcolo(/le,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  522. 


688  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  -  THE  MEANS   OF   GUACE. 

fices,  and  those  offered  on  the  feast  days,  and  especially  that  on 
the  great  day  of  atonement,  were  mtended  for  the  whole  nation ; 
so  according  to  Romanists,  the  propitiatory  sacrifice,  in  the  ordi- 
nary public  service,  is  offered  for  the  sins  of  the  faitliful  in  gen- 
eral, while  at  other  times  it  is  offered  for  particular  individuals. 
And  as  it  matters  not  whether  such  individuals  be  living  or 
dead,  it  is  obvious  that  such  masses  may  be  indefinitely  raulti- 
phed.  As  according  to  the  Church  of  Rome  the  great  majorit;,' 
of  those  dying  within  the  pale  of  the  Church,  pass  into  purga- 
tory,  where  they  remain  in  a  state  of  suffering  for  a  period  to 
which  there  is  no  certainly  known  termination  before  the  day 
of  judgment ;  for  their  benefit,  to  alleviate  or  shorten  their  suffer- 
ings, masses  may  be,  and  should  be  offered  by  their  surviving 
friends.  It  has  ever  been  found  that  men  at  the  approach  of 
death,  or  the  affectionate  relatives  of  the  departed,  are  willing  to 
appropriate  money  at  their  command,  to  pay  foi"  masses  for  their 
benefit.  This,  as  just  remarked,  has  proved  an  inexhaustible 
mine  of  wealth  to  the  Church.  "  Hujus  sacrificii  eam  vim  esse, 
parochi  docebunt,  ut  non  solum  immolanti,  et  sumenti  prosit,  sed 
omnibus  etiam  fidelibus,  sive  illi  nobiscum  in  terris  vivant,  sive 
jam  in  Domino  mortui,  nondum  plane  expiati  sint.  Neque  enim 
minus  ex  Apostolorum  certissima  traditione,  pro  his  utiliter  offer- 
tur,  quam  pro  vivorum  peccatis,  poenis,  satisfactionibus,  ac  quibus- 
vis  calamitatibus,  et  angustiis."  ^ 

Remarks. 
No  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  more  portentous  or  more 
fruitful  of  evil  consequences  than  this  doctrine  of  the  mass  ;  and 
no  doctrine  of  that  Church  is  more  entirely  destitute  of  even  a 
semblance  of  Scriptural  support.  The  words  of  Christ,  "  This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me,"  are  made  to  mean,  ''  Offer  the  sacrifice 
which  I  myself  have  just  offered"  (Offrez  le  sacrifice  que  je  vien 
d'offrir  moi-merae).^  These  words  constituted  the  Apostles  and  all 
their  successors  priests.  The  Council  of  Trent  even  anathema- 
tizes all  who  do  not  put  that  preposterous  interpretation  on  those 
simple  words.2  Romanists  also  appeal  to  the  fact  that  Christ  is 
said  to  be  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  jNIelchizedek,  from 
which  they  infer  that  ]Ie  continually  repeats  the  sacrifice  once 
offered  on  the  cross.     They  even  argue  from  such  passages  aa 

1  Cntechismiis  Romanus,  par.  ii.  cap.  iv.  qii:vst.  63  [86      ixxvi],  Strcitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp. 
360,  aoi. 
3  Gousset,  Thiohu/ie,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  .538. 
8  See  Sess.  xxii.  canon  2;  quoted  above  on  page  685. 


§19]  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.     ROMISH    DOCTRINE.  689 

Malaclii  i.  11,  in  which  the  universal  spread  of  the  true  rehgion  is 
predicted  by  saying  that  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going 
down  of  the  same,  "  in  every  phice  incense  shall  be  offered  vmto 
my  name,  and  a  pure  offering."  ^ 

Protestants  reject  the  doctrine  that  the  eucharist  is  a  true  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice,  — 

1.  Because  it  is  not  only  destitute  of  all  support  from  the 
Scriptures,  but  is  directly  contrary  to  the  whole  nature  of  the 
ordinance,  as  exhibited  in  its  original  institution  and  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostohc  church.  There  it  is  set  forth  as  a  sacred 
feast  commemorative  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

2.  Because  it  is  founded  on  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  transub- 
Btantiation.  If  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  be  not  changed 
into  the  substance  of  Christ's  body,  and  the  whole  substance  of 
the  Avine  into  the  substance  of  his  blood,  and  if  the  whole  Christ, 
body,  soul,  and  divinity  be  not  really  and  truly  present  under  the 
form  (or  species)  or  apj^earance  of  the  bread  and  wine,  then  the 
priest  in  the  mass  has  nothing  to  offer.  He  in  fact  offers  nothing, 
and  the  whole  service  is  a  deceit.  Just  so  certainly,  therefore,  as 
the  impossible  and  the  unscriptural  cannot  be  true,  just  so  certain 
is  it,  that  the  mass  is  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 

3.  The  Romish  doctrine  is  that  the  Apostles  were  priests,  and 
were  invested  with  authority  and  power  to  continue  and  perpetu- 
ate in  the  Church  the  priestly  office  by  ordination  and  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  by  which  the  supernatural  gffts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  conveyed.  All  this  is  unscriptural  and  false.  First, 
because  a  priest  is  a  man  appointed  to  be  a  mediator  between  God 
and  other  men,  drawing  near  to  Him  in  behalf  of  those  who  have 
not  liberty  of  access  for  themselves,  and  whose  function  it  is  to 
offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sin.  But  there  is  no  such  office  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  save  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  is  our  only,  and  all  sufficient  priest ;  everywhere  present  and 
everywliere  accessible,  who  has  opened  for  us  a  new  and  living 
way  of  access  to  God,  available  to  all  sinners  of  the  human  race 
without  the  intervention  of  any  of  their  fellow  sinners.  Every 
believer  is  as  much  a  priest  under  the  Gospel,  as  any  other  be- 

1  In  this  i)assa2-c  the  words  2.'3*2  "l^'p"",  correctly  rendered  in  the  English  version 
"  incense  shall  be  offered,"  in  the  Vulgate  are  translated  "  sacriticatur  "  In  the  Scptuagint 
it  is  euiJ-iaixa -pitraytiTaL.  Luther's  version  is,  "  geriiiichert."  Even  if  the  Vulgate  version 
were  correct,  and  the  prophet  had  said  that  "  in  every  place  sacritice  should  be  made,"  that 
would  prove  nothing  to  the  point.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  predicted  the  spread  of  the 
true  religion  under  the  Gospel  dispensation  in  the  use  of  terms  borrowed  from  the  Old 
Testament  ritual. 

VOL.  III.  a 


690  TART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   MEANS   OF    GRACE. 

liever,  for  through  Christ  they  all  have  equal  freedom  of  access 
unto  God.  It  subverts  tlie  whole  nature  of  the  gospel,  to  make 
the  intervention  of  any  human  priest  necessary  to  our  reconcilia- 
tion with  God.  Secondly,  Christian  ministers  are  never  called 
priests  in  the  New  Testament.  Every  title  of  dignity,  every  term 
expressive  of  the  nature  of  their  office,  is  bestowed  on  them,  but 
the  title  priest,  so  familiar  to  Jewish  and  Gentile  ears,  is  never 
given  to  them.  Nor  is  any  priestly  function  ascribed  to  them. 
They  are  not  mediators.  They  are  not  appointed  to  offer  sacri- 
fices for  sin.  Every  priest  is  a  mediator,  but  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared that  Christians  have  but  one  mediator,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus.  There  is  but  one  sacrifice  for  sin,  the  all  sufficient  sacri- 
fice of  Christ  upon  the  cross,  who  died  once  for  all  to  bring  ua 
near  to  God.  Thirdly,  Christ  Himself  and  the  Apostles  after 
Him  in  all  their  addresses  to  the  people,  instead  of  directing  them 
to  go  to  ministers  as  priests  to  obtain  the  benefits  of  redemption, 
uniformly  assume  that  the  way  is  open  for  the  return  of  every 
sinner  to  God  without  human  intervention.  "  Come  unto  me  "  is 
the  invitation  of  Christ  to  every  heavily  laden  sinner.  "  Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  is  the  gospel 
preached  by  the  Apostles  both  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  eman- 
cipation of  the  Christian  world  effected  by  the  Reformation,  con- 
sisted in  larsje  measure  in  freeino;  man  from  the  belief  that 
Christian  ministers  are  priests  through  whom  alone  sinners  can 
draw  near  to  God.  It  was  preaching  deliverance  to  captives,  and 
the  ojDening  of  the  prison  to  those  who  were  bound,  to  announce 
that  believers  through  Christ  are  all  made  kings  and  priests 
unto  God ;  subject  to  no  authorit}''  but  the  authority  of  God  (and 
of  course  to  such  as  He  has  ordained),  and  all  having  access  by 
one  Spirit  unto  the  Father.  If  then  ministers  are  not  priests,  the 
eucharist  is  not  a  saci'ifice. 

4.  The  Romish  doctrine  is  derogatory  to  the  sacrifice  of  the 
cross.  It  supposes  that  the  work  of  Christ  in  making  satisfaction 
for  the  sins  of  men,  needs  to  be  constantly  repeated.  This  is 
directly  contrary  to  Scrijjture,  which  teaches  that  by  the  one  offer- 
ing of  Himself,  He  has  forever  perfected  them  that  believe.  His 
one  sacrifice  has  done  all  that  need  be  done,  and  all  that  a  sacri- 
fice can  do.  Romanists  say  that  Lie  same  sacrifice  w^hich  was 
made  on  the  cross,  is  made  in  the  mass.  The  only  dift'erence  be- 
tween the  two  is  modal.  It  concerns  only  the  manner  of  obla- 
tion. Then  why  is  the  latter  needed  ?  Why  does  not  the  one 
offering  of  Christ  suffice  ?  Certain  it  is  the  Bible  refers  us  to 
nothinn;  else  :  and  the  believer  craves  nothini;  else. 


I 


§  19.]  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER.     ROMISH   DOCTRINE.  691 

5.  The  doctrine  of  the  sacrificial  character  of  tlie  eucharist,  is 
an  integral  part  of  the  great  system  of  error,  which  must  stand 
or  fall  as  a  whole.  Romanism  is  another  gospel.  It  proposes  a 
different  method  of  salvation  from  that  presented  in  the  word  of 
God.  It  teaches  that  no  one  can  be  saved  who  is  out  of  the  pale 
of  that  visible  society  of  which  the  pope  of  Rome  is  the  head  ;  and 
that  all  are  saved  who  die  within  that  pale.  It  teaches  that  no 
one  can  be  regenerated  who  is  not  baptized  ;  and  that  there  is  no 
forgiveness  for  post-baptismal  sins,  except  by  the  sacrament  of 
penance  and  absolution  at  the  hands  of  a  priest.  It  teaches  that 
no  one  can  have  the  benefit  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  who  does 
not  receive  it  at  the  hands  of  a  properly  ordained  officer  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  It  teaches  that  there  is  no  valid  ministr}^  and 
that  there  are  no  valid  ordinances  except  in  the  line  of  the 
apostolic  succession  as  recognized  by  the  pope.  It  follows  men 
beyond  the  grave.  It  teaches  that  the  souls  in  purgatory  are 
Still  under  the  power  of  the  keys  ;  that  their  stay  in  that  place 
or  state  of  torment,  can  be  prolonged  or  shortened  at  the  will  of 
the  Church.  The  pope  assumes,  and  has  often  pretended  to  ex- 
ercise, the  power  of  granting  indulgences  for  even  a  thousand 
years.  This  whole  theory  hangs  together.  If  one  assumption 
be  false,  the  whole  is  false.  And  if  the  theory  in  its  primary 
principle  of  a  perpetual  apostleship,  infallible  in  teaching  and  of 
plenary  power  in  government  and  discipline,  be  false,  then  every 
particular  doctrine  involving  that  principle  must  be  false. 

Moehler,  whose  philosophical  and  mitigated  Romanism,  has 
called  down  upon  him  no  little  censure  from  his  stricter  brethren, 
represents  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  as  the  point  in  which  all 
the  differences  between  Romanists  and  Protestants  converge.  On 
the  view  taken  of  this  doctrine  depends  the  question  whether  the 
Christian  Church  has  a  true  living  "  cultus  "  or  not.  With  him 
the  Church,  of  course,  is  the  body,  which,  professing  the  true  re- 
ligion, is  united  in  the  reception  of  the  same  sacraments,  in  sub- 
jection to  bishops  canonically  consecrated,  and  especially  to  the 
pope  of  Rome.  For  him,  and  all  Rommiists,  this  Church  is  Christ. 
He  dwells  in  it ;  animates  it  ;  operates  through  it  exclusively  in 
the  salvation  of  men.  The  teaching  of  the  Church  is  his  teach- 
ing ;  its  commands  are  his  commands ;  He  regenerates  only 
through  its  sacrament  of  baptism  ;  He  remits  sin  only  through 
the  sacrament  of  penance  ;  He  strengthens  in  confirmation  ;  He 
nourishes  his  people  with  his  body  and  blood  in  the  eucharist ; 
and  in  the  ordination  of  priests.     He  appoints  the  organs  through 


692  PART   III      Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

which  all  this  is  done  by  his  ceaseless  activity.  "  The  Church," 
says  jNIochler,  "is  vicariously  (auf  eine  abbildlich-Iebenchge  Weise) 
.Christ  inaiiifested  and  working  through  all  time.  The  Redeemer 
did  not  merely  live  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  then  disap- 
pear, to  be  remembered  only  as  a  historical  person  as  any  other  of 
the  departed  ;  on  the  contrary  He  is  ever  living  in  the  Church."^ 
Romanists,  therefore,  practically  take  away  Christ,  and  give  us 
the  C^hurch  in  his  stead.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  by  the 
Church  they  do  not  mean  the  body  consisting  of  true  behevers, 
but  the  external,  organized  body  of  which  the  pope  is  the  head. 
It  is  this  body  represented  in  history  by  the  Hildebrands,  the 
liorgias,  and  the  Leos,  which  Romanism  puts  in  the -place  of 
Christ,  clothing  it  with  his  prerogatives,  and  claiming  for  it  the 
obedience,  the  reverence,  and  the  confidence  due  to  God  alone. 
It  is  against  this  theory,  which  practically  puts  man  in  the  place 
of  God,  that  the  most  fearful  denunciations  of  the  Scriptures  are 
pronounced. 

§  20.  Prayer. 

Prayer  is  the  converse  of  the  soul  with  God.  Therein  we 
manifest  or  express  to  Him  our  reverence,  and  love  for  his  divine 
perfection,  our  gratitude  for  all  his  mercies,  our  penitence  for 
our  sins,  our  hope  in  his  forgiving  love,  oiu*  submission  to  his  au- 
thority, our  confidence  in  his  care,  our  desires  for  his  favour,  and 
for  the  providential  and  spiritual  blessings  needed  for  ourselves 
and  others.  As  religion,  in  the  subjective  sense  of  the  word,  is 
the  state  of  mind  induced  by  the  due  apprehension  of  the  charac- 
ter of  God  and  of  our  relation  to  Him  as  our  Creator,  Preserver, 
and  Redeemer  ;  so  prayer  is  the  expression,  uttered  or  unuttered, 
of  all  the  feelings  and  desires  which  that  state  of  mind  produces 
or  excites.  A  prayerless  man  is  of  necessity,  and  thoroughly  irre- 
ligious. There  can  be  no  life  without  activity.  As  the  body  is 
dead  when  it  ceases  to  act,  so  the  soul  that  goes  not  forth  in  its 
actions  towards  God,  that  lives  as  though  there  were  no  God,  is 
spiritually  dead. 

Prayer  takes  a  great  deal  for  granted.  It  assumes,  in  the  first 
place,  the  personality  of  God.  Only  a  person  can  say  T,  or  be 
addressed  as  Thou  ;  only  a  person  can  be  the  subject  and  object 
of  intelligent  action,  can  apprehend  and  answer,  can  love  and  be 
loved,  or  hold  converse  with  other  persons.  If  God,  therefore,  be 
only  a  name  for  an  unknown  force,  or  for  the  moral  order  of  the 

1  Sij,nb„ni;  vnn  Dr.  J.  A.  Moehlor,  (lt!i  udit.  Maiflz,  I8i:i,  p.  .«)0. 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  693 

universe,  prayer  becomes  irrational  and  impossible.^  Secondly, 
God,  however,  although  a  person,  may  dwell  far  off  in  immensity, 
and  have  no  intercourse  with  his  creatures  on  earth.  Prayer, 
therefore,  assumes  not  only  the  personality  of  God,  but  also  that 
He  is  near  us ;  that  He  is  not  only  able,  but  also  willing  to  hold 
intercourse  with  us,  to  hear  and  answer ;  that  He  knows  our 
thoughts  afar  off  ;  and  that  unuttered  aspirations  are  intelligible 
to  Him.  Thirdly,  it  assumes  that  He  has  the  personal  control  of 
all  nature,  i.  c,  of  all  things  out  of  Himself ;  that  He  governs  all 
his  creatures  and  all  their  actions.  It  assumes  that  He  has  not 
only  created  all  things  and  endowed  matter  and  mind  with  forces 
and  powers,  but  that  He  is  everywhere  present,  controlling  the 
operation  of  such  forces  and  powers,  so  that  nothing  occurs  with- 
out his  direction  or  permission.  When  it  rains,  it  is  because 
He  wills  it,  and  controls  the  laws  of  nature  to  produce  that  effect. 
When  the  earth  produces  fruit  in  abundance,  or  when  the  hopes 
of  the  husbandman  are  disappointed,  tliese  effects  are  not  to  be 
referred  to  the  blind  operation  of  natural  laws,  but  to  God's  intel- 
ligent and  personal  control.  There  is  no  such  reign  of  law  as 
makes  God  a  subject.  It  is  He  who  reigns,  and  orders  all  the 
operations  of  nature  so  as  to  accomplish  his  own  purposes. 

This  does  not  suppose  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  mutable,  or 
that  they  are  set  aside.  There  is  scarcely  any  effect,  either  in  na- 
ture or  in  the  acts  of  men,  due  to  the  operation  of  any  one  natural 
force.  We  produce  effects  by  combining  such  forces,  so  that  the 
result  is  due  to  this  intelligent  and  voluntary  combination.  In 
like  manner,  in  the  ordinary  operations  of  nature,  God  accom- 
plishes his  purpose  by  a  similar  intelligent  and  voluntary  com- 
bination of  natural  causes.  When  He  wills  that  it  should  rain. 
He  wills  that  all  the  secondary  causes,  productive  of  that  effect, 
should  be  brought  into  operation.  The  doctrine  of  providence 
only  supposes  that  God  does,  on  the  scale  of  the  universe,  what  we 
do  within  the  limited  sphere  of  our  efficiency.  We,  indeed,  so  far 
as  effects  out  of  ourselves  are  concerned,  are  tied  to  the  use  of 

1  Pliilosophers,  says  Dr.  Chalmers,  "look  on  the  Supreme  Principle  to  be  in  every  way 
as  inflexible  and  sure  as  they  have  uniformly  found  of  the  subordinate  ])rinciples;  and  that 
He  is  as  unlit  to  be  addressed  by  a  petition  or  the  expression  of  a  wish,  as  any  fancied  spirit 
that  may  reside  in  a  volcano  or  a  storm,  in  any  other  department  of  nature's  vast  machin- 
ery —  that  the  cries  of  urgency  and  distress  are  of  no  more  avail  when  sent  up  to  Him  who 
wields  the  elements  of  the  world,  as  if  they  were  only  lifted  to  the  elements  themselves  — 
that  the  same  uneliangeableness  which  pervades  all  nature,  is  also  characteristic  of  nature's 
God:  and  so  they  deem  to  be  an  aberration  from  sound  philosophy,  both  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  providence  and  the  observation  of  prayer."  Chalmers,  Works,  ed.  New  York, 
1844,  vol.  ii.  p.  319. 


694  PART   IIT.     Cn.   XX.  —  THE   MEANS   OF   GRACE. 

secondary  causes.  We  can  act  neither  against  them,  nor  without 
them.  God  is  not  thus  limited.  He  can  operate  without  second 
causes  as  well  as  with  them,  or  against  them.  There  seems  to  be 
no  little  confusion  in  the  minds  of  many  writers  on  this  subject. 
They  insist  on  the  immutability  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  some 
times  speak  of  God  as  constantly  controlling  their  operation  by 
combining  and  directing  their  forces  ;  and  yet  they  resolve  all 
second  causes  into  the  divine  efficiency  ;  that  is,  an  efficiency  di- 
rected by  intelligence  and  will.  "  It  is  but  reasonable,"  says  Sir 
John  Herschel,  "  to  regard  the  force  of  gravitation  as  the  direct 
or  indirect  result  of  a  consciousness  or  will  existing  somewhere."  ^ 
"  It  may  be  that  all  natural  forces  are  resolvable  in  some  one 
force,  and  indeed  in  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  correlation  of 
forces,  an  idea  which  is  a  near  approach  to  this,  has  already  en- 
tered the  domain  of  science.  It  may  also  be  that  this  one  force, 
into  which  all  others  return  again,  is  itself  but  a  mode  of  action 
of  the  Divine  Will."  ^  It  is  a  common  remark  that  the  only  force 
of  which  we  have  any  direct  knowledge  is  mind-force,  and  hence 
that  it  is  unphilosopliical  to  assume  any  other.  From  this  it  is  in- 
ferred that  all  the  forces  operating  in  nature  are  the  energy  of  the 
one  Supreme  Intelligence.  This  doctrine,  as  shown  when  treat- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  Providence,  almost  inevitably  leads  to  pan- 
theism. But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  those  Avho  take  this  view 
can  consistently  speak  of  the  immutability  of  law,  or  of  God's  be- 
ing free  only  within  its  limits.  It  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  mind- 
power,  that  it  should  be  free  ;  that  it  should  act  when,  where, 
and  how  it  pleases.  In  the  case  of  God,  indeed,  it  cannot  act 
unwisely  or  unjustly.  But  if  all  the  forces  of  nature  are  only 
manifestations  of  the  divine  efficiency,  what  meaning  can  be  at- 
tached to  the  proposition  that  He  operates  with,  and  through,  and 
never  independently  of  natural  law  ? 

The  Scriptural  doctrine  is  that  God  is  an  extra-mundane,  per- 
sonal Being,  independent  of  the  world,  who  has  created  it,  and 
endowed  all  things  material  with  their  several  properties  or  pow- 
ers, which  He  in  his  omnipresent,  and  infinitely  wise  omnipotence, 
constantly  controls.  This  doctrine  is  presupposed  in  prayer  ;  for 
"  prayer  and  the  answer  of  prayer,  are  simply  ....  the  pre- 
ferring of  a  request  upon  the  one  side,  and  compliance  with  that 
request  upon  the  other.  Man  applies,  God  complies.  Man  asks 
a  favour,  (iod  bestows  it.     These  are  conceived  to  be  the  two 

1  Outlines  of  Astronomy,  5th  ed.  p.  292. 

2  The  Rii</n  of  Law,  by  the  Duke  of  Arfcy'e,  5tli  ed.  London    18G7,  p.  129. 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  695 

terms  of  a  real  interchange  that  takes  place  between  the  parties 
— the  two  terms  of  a  sequence,  in  fact,  whereof  the  antecedent  is 
a  prayer  lifted  ap  from  earth,  and  the  consequent  is  the  fulfilment 
of  that  prayer  in  virtue  of  a  mandate  from  heaven."  ^ 

Prayer  also  supposes  that  the  government  of  God  extends  over 
the  minds  of  men,  over  their  thoughts,  feelings,  and  volitions ; 
that  the  heart  is  in  his  hands,  and  that  He  can  turn  it  even  as 
the  rivers  of  water  are  turned. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  not  only  atheism,  pantheism,  mate- 
rialism, and  every  other  system  of  philosophy  which  involves  the 
denial  of  the  existence  or  the  personality  of  God,  but  also  all 
other  theories,  whether  scientific  or  philosophical,  which  do  not 
admit  of  the  control  of  God  over  the  operations  of  nature  and  the 
character  and  conduct  of  men,  are  inconsistent  Avith  prayer.  Ac- 
cording to  all  these  systems  there  is  either  no  one  to  pray  to,  or 
nothing  to  pray  for.  If  there  be  no  personal  God,  there  is  no 
one  to  pray  to  ;  and  if  God,  supposing  such  a  Being  to  exist, 
has  no  control  over  nature  or  man,  then  there  is  no  rational  mo- 
tive for  prayer ;  there  is  nothing  to  be  accomplished  by  it.  The 
idea  that  the  service  would  still  be  of  value  for  its  subjective 
effect  is  irrational,  because  its  subjective  effect  is  due  to  faith  in 
its  objective  efficiency.  If  a  man  believes  that  there  is  no  God, 
he  cannot  make  himself  a  better  man  by  acting  hypocritically, 
and  pouring  forth  his  prayers  and  praises  to  a  nonentity.  Or,  if 
a  believer  in  the  existence  of  God,  if  he  has  such  a  theory  of  his 
nature  or  of  his  relation  to  the  world,  as  precludes  the  possibility 
of  his  hearing,  or  if  He  hears,  of  liis  answering  our  prayers,  then 
prayer  becomes  irrational.  Candid  men,  therefore,  who  in  their 
philosopliy  hold  any  of  the  theories  referred  to,  do  not  hesitate 
to  pronounce  prayer  superstitious  or  fanatical.  Kant,  although  a 
theist,  regards  all  as  unphilosophical  enthusiasts  who  assume  that 
God  hears  or  answers  prayer.^ 

Professor  Tyndall,  one  of  the  representative  scientific  men  of 
the  age,  says,  "  One  by  one  natural  phenomena  have  been  as- 
sociated with  their  proximate  causes  ;  and  the  idea  of  direct  per- 
sonal volition,  mixing  itself  in  the  economy  of  nature,  is  retreating 
more  and  more."  Science,  he  tells  us  "  does  assert,  for  example, 
that  without  a  disturbance  of  natural  law,  quite  as  serious  as  the 
stoppage  of  an  eclipse,  or  the  rolling  the  St.  Lawrence  up  the 

1  Chalmers,  ut  supra,  p.  321. 

2  Kant's  Lchen,  von  Borowsky,  p.  199  (Biichner's  Biblische  Real-unA  Verhal-Concoi'- 
dam,  word  "  Bitte  "  );  Halle,  1840,  Gth  ed.  p.  560. 


696       PART  m.    Ch.  XX.  — the  means  of  grace. 

Falls  of  Niagara,  no  act  of  humiliation,  individual  or  national, 
could  call  one  shower  from  heaven,  or  deflect  towards  us  a  single 
beam  of  the  sun."  [Man  may  deflect  the  beams  of  the  sun  at 
pleasure,  but  God  cannot.  Man,  according  to  Professor  Espy, 
can  make  it  rain,  but  God  cannot.]  "  Those,  therefore,  Avho  be- 
lieve that  the  miraculous  is  still  active  in  nature,  may  with  per- 
fect consistency  join  in  our  periodic  prayers  for  fair  weatlier  and 
for  rain  :  while  those  who  hold  that  the  age  of  miracles  is  past, 
will  refuse  to  join  in  such  petitions."  ^  With  Professor  Tyndall 
and  the  large  class  of  scientists  to  which  he  belongs,  there  never 
has  been  an  event  in  the  external  world  due  to  the  exercise  of  any 
other  force  than  the  undirected  operation  of  physical  causes. 
"  Nothing  has  occurred  to  indicate  that  the  operation  of  the  law 
[of  gravity]  has  for  a  moment  been  suspended  ;  nothing  has  ever 
intimated  that  nature  has  been  crossed  by  spontaneous  action,  or 
that  a  state  of  things  at  any  time  existed  which  could  not  be 
rigorously  deduced  from  the  preceding  state.  Given  the  distribu- 
tion of  matter  and  the  forces  in  operation  in  the  time  of  Galileo, 
the  competent  mathematician  of  that  day  could  predict  what  is 
now  occurring  in  our  own."  ^  What  is  meant  by  "  spontaneous 
action  "  ?  Spontaneous  is  antithetical  to  necessarj'^.  Spontaneous 
action,  therefore,  is  free  action  ;  the  action  of  intelligence  and 
will ;  such  action  as  Professor  Tyndall  disjolays  in  writing  or  de- 
livering his  lectures.  His  assertion,  therefore,  is  that  there  has 
never  occurred  in  nature  any  effect  which  may  not  be  referred 
to  necessary,  i.  e.,  to  blind,  unintelligent  causes.  This  of  course 
precludes  the  possibility  of  miracles.  For  a  miracle  is  an  event 
in  the  external  world  which  cannot  be  referred  to  any  natural 
cause,  but  which  must  from  its  nature  be  ascribed  to  tlie  im- 
mediate efficiency,  or  the  "  spontaneous  action  "  of  God.  When 
Christ  said,  "  I  will;  be  thou  clean,"  and  the  leper  was  cleansed, 
the  only  cause,  or  efficient  antecedent  of  the  cure,  was  his  will ; 
a  volition.  So  when  He  said,  "  Lazarus  come  forth,"  or  Avhen  He 
"  said  unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be  still.  And  the  wind  ceased  and 
there  was  a  great  calm."  The  scientific  man  has  no  idea  how 
small  he  looks,  when,  in  the  presence  of  Christ,  he  ventures  to  say 
that  nature  has  never  been  crossed  by  "  s})ontaneons  action  ;  " 
that  Christ's  will  was  not  a  cause,  when  he  healed  the  sick,  or 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  or  raised  the  dead,  by  a  word  ;  or 

i  Frar/men(s  of  Science  for  Unscientific  People,  by  John  Tyndall,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.< 
London  1871,  pp.  31,  32,  aiid  3G. 
2  Ibid.  pp.  63,  64. 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  697 

when  He  himself  rose  by  his  own  power  from  the  grave.  To 
say  that  these  facts  never  occurred,  simply  because,  according  to 
the  ephemeral  theory  of  the  hour,  they  could  not  occur,  is  the 
infinite  of  folly.  It  is  a  thousand  fold  more  certain  that  they  oc- 
curred than  that  the  best  authenticated  facts  of  history  are  true. 
For  such  facts  we  have  only  ordinary  historical  evidence ;  for  the 
truth  of  Christ's  miracles,  and  especially  of  his  resurrection,  we 
have  the  evidence  of  all  the  facts  of  history  from  his  day  to  the 
present.  The  actual  state  of  the  world,  and  the  existence  of  the 
Church,  necessitate  the  admission  of  those  facts,  to  which  God 
himself  bore  witness  of  old  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and  divers 
miracles,  as  He  does  still  in  a  manner  absolutely  irresistible,  in 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  hear  the  whole  gospel,  even  con- 
structively, pronounced  a  lie,  is  a  sore  trial  to  those  who  have  even 
a  glimmer  of  the  faith  of  Paul,  and  who  can  only  say  with  quiver- 
ing lips,  what  he  said  with  the  fulness  of  assurance,  "  I  know 
whom  I  have  believed."  ^  Scientific  men  are  prone  to  think  that 
there  is  no  other  evidence  of  truth,  than  the  testimony  of  the 
senses.  But  the  reason  has  its  intuitions,  the  moral  nature  its 
d  priori  judgments,  the  religious  consciousness  its  immediate 
apprehensions,  which  are  absolutely  infallible  and  of  paramount 
authority.  A  man  might  as  easily  emancipate  himself  from  the 
operation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  as  from  the  authority  of  the  moral 
law,  or  his  responsibility  to  God.  When,  therefore,  men  of  sci- 
ence advance  theories  opposed  to  these  fundamental  convictions, 
they  are  like  bats  impinging  against  the  everlasting  rocks. 

But  apart  from  the  case  of  miracles,  it  may  be  safely  said,  that 
so  far  from  its  being  true  that  nature  has  never  been  "  crossed 
by  spontaneous  action,"  such  action  in  nature  is  familiar,  con- 
stant, and  almost  universal.  What  is  an  organism,  but  the  prod- 
uct of  spontaneous  action  ?  that  is,  of  the  intelligent  (and  there- 
fore voluntary)  selection  and  application  of  appropriate  means  for 
the  accomplishment  of  a  foreseen  and  intended  end  ?  If  the 
world  is  full  of  the  evidences  of  spontaneous  action  on  the  part  of 
man,  nature  is  full  of  evidence  of  such  action  on  the  part  of  God. 
The  evidence  is  of  the  same  kind,  and  just  as  palpable  and  irre- 
sistible in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  It  is  admitted  of  necessity 
by  those  who  deny  it.  Darwin's  books,  for  example,  are  full  of 
such  expressions  as  "wonderful  contrivance,"  "ingenious  device," 

1  In  the  volume  above  referred  to,  there  is  an  article  entitled,  "Miracles  and  Spiicial 
Providences,"  being  a  review  by  Professor  Tyndall  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jlozley's  Bnmpton 
Lectures  on  Miracles.  In  that  review  "magic,  miracles,  and  witchcraft"  are  placed  in 
the  same  category. 


698  PART  III.     Ch.   XX.  — the  means   OF   GRACE. 

"  marvellous  arrangements."  These  expressions  reveal  the  per- 
ception of  spontaneous  action.  They  have  no  meaning  except  on 
the  assumption  of  such  action.  "  Contrivance,"  "  device,"  imply 
design,  and  would  not  be  used  if  the  perception  of  intention  did 
not  suggest  and  necessitate  them.  Some  twenty  times  already, 
in  the  course  of  this  work,  it  has  been  shown  that,  in  many  cases, 
those  Avho  begin  mth  denying  any  spontaneous  action  in  nature, 
end  with  asserting  that  there  is  no  other  kind  of  action  anywhere  ; 
that  all  force  is  mind-force,  and  therefore  spontaneous  as  well 
as  intelligent. 

Spontaneous  action  cannot  be  got  rid  of.  If  denied  in  the 
present,  it  must  be  admitted  in  the  past.  If,  as  even  Professor 
Huxley  teaches,  "  Organization  is  not  the  cause  of  life ;  but  life 
is  the  cause  of  organization,"  ^  the  question  is.  Whence  comes 
life  ?  Not  out  of  nothing,  surely.  It  must  have  its  origin  in  the 
spontaneous,  voluntary  act  of  the  ever,  and  the  necessarily  Liv- 
ing One. 

The  theory  of  the  universe  which  underlies  the  Bible,  which  is 
everywhere  assumed  or  asserted  in  the  sacred  volume,  which  ac- 
cords with  our  moral  and  religious  nature,  and  which,  therefore, 
is  the  foundation  of  natural,  as  well  as  of  revealed  religion,  is 
that  God  created  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power  ;  that  He 
endowed  his  creatures  with  their  properties  or  forces  ;  that  He  is 
everywhere  present  in  the  universe,  cooperating  with  and  con- 
trolling the  operation  of  second  causes  on  a  scale  commensurate 
with  his  omnipresence  and  omnipotence,  as  we,  in  our  measure, 
cooperate  with,  and  control  them  within  the  narrow  range  of  our 
efficiency.  According  to  this  theory,  it  is  not  irrational  that  we 
should  pray  for  rain  or  fair  weather,  for  prosperous  voyages  or 
healthful  seasons ;  or  that  we  should  feel  gratitude  for  the  in- 
numerable blessings  which  we  receive  from  this  ever  present, 
ever  operating,  and  ever  watchful  benefactor  and  Father.  Any 
theory  of  the  universe  which  makes  religion,  or  prayer,  irrational, 
is  self-evidently  false,  because  it  contradicts  the  nature,  the  con- 
sciousness, and  the  irrepressible  convictions  of  men.  As  this 
control  of  God  extends  over  the  minds  of  men,  it  is  no  less  ra- 
tional that  we  should  pray,  as  all  men  instinctively  do  pray,  that 
He  would  influence  our  own  hearts,  and  the  hearts  of  others,  for 
good,  than  that  we  should  pray  for  health. 

It  is  also  involved  in  the  assumptions  already  referred  to,  that 
the  sequence  of   events  in  the  physical  and  moral  world  is  not 

1  Elements  of  Comparative  Anatomy,  pp.  10,  11. 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  699 

determined  by  any  inexorable  fate.  A  fatalist  cannot  consist- 
ently pray.  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  that  there  is  a  God, 
who  does  his  pleasm-e  in  the  army  of  heaven  and  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  that  we  can  rationally  address  Him  as 
the  hearer  of  prayer. 

In  like  manner  it  is  assumed  that  there  is  no  such  foreordination 
of  events  as  j«  inconsistent  with  God's  acting  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  mil.  When  a  man  enters  upon  any  great  enter- 
prise, he  lays  down  beforehand  the  plan  of  his  operations  ;  selects 
and  determines  his  means,  and  assigns  to  each  subordinate  the 
part  he  is  to  act ;  he  may  require  each  to  apply  continually  for 
guidance  and  directions ;  and  may  assure  him  that  his  requests 
for  assistance  and  guidance  shall  be  answered.  Were  it  possible 
that  every  instance  of  such  application  or  request  could  be  fore- 
seen and  the  answer  predetermined,  this  would  not  be  inconsistent 
with  the  duty  or  propriety  of  such  requests  being  made,  or  with 
the  liberty  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  controller.  This  illustra- 
tion may  amount  to  little  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  both  foreordination  and  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  The  two, 
therefore,  cannot  be  inconsistent.  God  has  not  determined  to  ac- 
complish his  purposes  without  the  use  of  means ;  and  among  those 
means,  the  prayers  of  his  people  have  their  appropriate  place. 
If  the  objection  to  prayer,  founded  on  the  foreordination  of  events, 
be  valid,  it  is  valid  against  the  use  of  means  in  any  case.  If  it 
be  unreasonable  to  say,  '  If  it  be  foreordained  that  I  should  live, 
it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  eat,'  it  is  no  less  unreasonable  for  me 
to  say,  '  If  it  be  foreordained  that  I  should  receive  any  good,  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  to  ask  for  it.'  If  God  has  foreordained  to 
bless  us.  He  has  foreordained  that  we  should  seek  his  blessing. 
Prayer  has  the  same  causal  relation  to  the  good  bestowed,  as  any 
other  means  has  to  the  end  with  which  it  is  connected. 

The  God  of  the  Bible,  who  has  revealed  Himself  as  the  hearer 
of  prayer,  is  not  mere  intelligence  and  power.  He  is  love.  He 
feels  as  well  as  thinks.  Like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  childi-en,  so 
the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  Him.  He  is  full  of  tenderness, 
compassion,  long-suffering,  and  benevolence.  This  is  not  anthro- 
pomorphism. These  declarations  of  Scripture  are  not  mere 
"regulative  truths."  They  reveal  what  God  really  is.  If  man 
was  made  in  his  image,  God  is  like  man.  All  the  excellences  of 
our  nature  as  spirits  belong  to  Him  without  limitation,  and  to  an 
infinite  degree.  There  is  mystery  here,  as  there  is  everywhere. 
But  we  are  all  used  to  mysteries,  the  naturaHst  as  well  as   the 


700  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

theologian.  Both  have  been  taught  the  folly  of  denying  that  a 
thing  is,  because  we  cannot  tell  how  it  is.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  that  God  loves  us  and  cares  for  us  ;  that  a  sparrow  does  not 
fall  to  the  ground  without  his  notice,  and  that  we  are,  in  his 
sight,  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows.  All  this  for  the 
believer  is  literal  truth,  having  in  its  support  the  highest  kind  of 
evidence.     The  "  how  "  he  is  content  to  leave  unexplained. 

It  is  an  objection  often  urged  against  the  propriety  of  address- 
ing prayer  to  God,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  his  dignity  as  an 
infinite  Being  to  suppose  that  He  concerns  HimseK  with  the 
trifling  affairs  of  men.  This  objection  arises  from  a  forgetful- 
ness  that  God  is  infinite.  It  assumes  that  his  knowledge,  power, 
or  presence,  is  limited  ;  that  He  would  be  distracted  if  his  atten- 
tion were  directed  to  all  the  minute  changes  constantly  occurring 
throughout  the  universe.  This  supposes  that  God  is  a  creature 
like  ourselves ;  that  bounds  can  be  set  to  his  intelligence  or  effi- 
ciency. When  a  man  looks  out  on  an  extended  landscape,  the 
objects  to  which  his  attention  is  simultaneously  directed  are  too 
numerous  to  be  counted.  What  is  man  to  God  ?  The  absolute 
mtelligence  must  know  all  things  ;  absolute  power  must  be  able 
to  direct  all  things.  In  the  sight  of  God,  the  distinction  between 
few  and  many,  great  and  small,  disappears.  In  Him  all  creatures 
live,  and  move,  and  have  their  being. 

The    Object  of  Prayer. 

As  prayer  involves  the  ascription  of  divine  attributes  to  its  ob- 
ject, it  can  be  properly  addressed  to  God  alone.  The  heathen 
prayed  to  imaginary  beings,  or  to  idols,  who  had  eyes  that  saw 
not,  and  hands  that  could  not  save.  Equally  unscriptural  and 
irrational  are  prayers  addressed  to  any  creature  of  whose  presence 
we  have  no  knowledge,  and  of  whose  ability  either  to  hear  or 
answer  our  petitions  we  have  no  evidence. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  prayers  therein  recorded  are  uni- 
formly addressed  to  God,  as  such ;  to  the  one  Divine  Being,  be- 
cause the  distinction  of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead  was  then  but 
imperfectly  revealed.  In  the  New  Testament,  prayer  is  addressed 
either  to  God,  as  the  Triune  God,  or  to  the  Father,  to  the  Son, 
and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  distinct  persons.  In  the  Christian 
doxology,  used  wherever  the  Bible  is  known,  the  several  persons 
of  the  Trinity  are  separately  addressed.  The  examples  of  prayer 
addressed  to  Christ,  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  are  very 
numerous.     As  prayer,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  in- 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  701 

eludes  all  converse  with  God  either  in  the  form  of  praise,  thanks- 
giving, confession,  or  petition  ;  all  the  ascriptions  of  glory  to  Him, 
as  well  as  all  direct  supplications  addressed  to  Him,  come  under 
this  head.  The  Apostles  prayed  to  Him  while  He  was  yet  with 
them  on  earth,  asking  of  Him  blessings  which  God  only  could 
bestow,  as  when  they  said,  "  Lord,  increase  our  faith."  The 
dying  thief,  taught  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  said,  "  Lord,  remember 
me,  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom."  The  last  words  of  the 
first  martyr,  Stephen,  were,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit." 
Paul  besought  the  Lord  thrice  that  the  thorn  in  his  flesh  might  de- 
part from  him.  So  in  1  Timothy  i.  12,  he  says,  "  I  thank  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord,  who  hath  enabled  me,  for  that  He  counted  me 
faithful,  putting  me  into  the  ministry."  In  Revelation  i.  5,  6,  it 
is  said,  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God 
and  his  Father  ;  to  Him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen."  Revelation  v.  13,  "  Every  creature  which  is  in  heaven, 
and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea, 
and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying,  '  Blessing,  and  honour, 
and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever.' "  As  the  Bible  so  clearly 
teaches  that  Christ  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ;  that  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth  is  committed  to  his  hands ;  that  He  is  ex- 
alted to  give  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins ;  as  He  gives 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  as  He  is  said  to  dwell  in  us,  and  to  be  our 
life ;  it  does  thereby  teach  us  that  He  is  the  proper  object  of 
prayer.  Accordingly,  as  all  Christians  are  the  worshippers  of 
Christ,  so  He  has  ever  been  the  object  of  their  adoration,  thanks- 
givings, praises,  confessions,  and  supplications. 

Requisites  of  Acceptable  Prayer. 

1.  The  first  and  most  obviously  necessary  requisite  of  accepta- 
ble prayer,  is  sincerity.  God  is  a  Spirit.  He  searches  the  heart. 
He  is  not  satisfied  with  words,  or  with  external  homage.  He 
cannot  be  deceived  and  will  not  be  mocked.  It  is  a  great  offence, 
therefore,  in  his  sight,  when  we  utter  words  before  Him  in  which 
our  hearts  do  not  join.  We  sin  against  Him  when  we  use  terms, 
in  the  utterance  of  which  the  angels  veil  their  faces,  with  no  cor- 
responding feelings  of  reverence  ;  or  use  the  formulas  of  thanks- 
giving without  gi-atitude  ;  or  those  of  humility  and  confession 
without  any  due  sense  of  our  unworthiness  ;  or  those  of  petition 
without  desire  for  the   blessings  we  ask.     Every  one   must  ac- 


702  PART   III.     Ch.   XX.  — the   means   OF   GRACE. 

knowledge  that  this  is  an  evil  often  attending  the  prayers  of  sin- 
cere Christians ;  and  with  regard  to  the  multitudes  who,  in  places 
of  pubhc  worship,  repeat  the  solemn  forms  of  devotion  or  profess 
to  unite  with  those  who  utter  them,  without  any  corresponding 
emotions,  the  service  is  little  more  than  mockery. 

2.  Reverence.  God  is  an  infinitely  exalted  Being  ;  infinite  in 
his  holiness  as  well  as  in  knowledge  and  power.  He  is  to  be 
had  in  reverence  by  all  who  are  round  about  Him.  This  holy 
fear  is  declared  to  be  the  first  element  of  all  true  religion.  His 
people  are  designated  as  those  who  fear  his  name.  We  are 
required  to  serve  Him  with  reverence  and  godly  fear.  And 
whenever  heaven  is  opened  to  our  view,  its  inhabitants  are  seen 
prostrate  before  the  throne.  We  offend  God,  therefore,  when 
we  address  Him  as  we  would  a  fellow  creature,  or  use  forms  of 
expression  of  undue  familiarity.  Nothing  is  more  characteristic 
of  the  prayers  recorded  in  the  Bible,  than  the  spirit  of  reverence 
by  which  they  are  pervaded.  The  Psalms  especially  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  prayer-book.  Every  Psalm  is  a  prayer,  whether  of 
worship,  of  thanksgiving,  of  confession,  or  of  supplication.  In 
many  cases  all  these  elements  are  intermingled.  They  relate  to 
all  circumstances  in  the  inward  and  outward  life  of  those  by 
whom  they  were  indited.  They  recognize  the  control  of  God 
over  all  events,  and  over  the  hearts  of  men.  They  assume  that 
He  is  ever  near  and  ever  watchful,  sustaining  to  his  peoj)le  the 
relation  of  a  loving  Father.  But  with  all  this,  there  is  never  any 
forge tfulness  of  his  infinite  majesty.  There  is  a  tendency  some- 
times in  the  best  of  men,  to  address  God  as  though  He  were  one 
of  ourselves.  Luther's  familiar  formula  was,  Lieber  Herr,  or 
Lieber  Herr  Gott  (dear  Lord,  dear  Lord  God).  As  Lieber  Herr 
is  the  nsual  mode  of  address  among  friends  (equivalent  to  our 
Dear  Sir),  it  sounds  strangely  when  God  is  thus  addressed.  In 
Luther  it  was  the  expression  of  faith  and  love  ;  in  many  who 
imitate  him  it  is  the  manifestation  of  an  irreverent  si^irit. 

3.  Humility,  This  includes,  first,  a  due  sense  of  our  insignifi- 
cance as  creatures  ;  and  secondly,  a  proper  apprehension  of  our 
ill-desert  and  uncleanness  in  the  sight  of  God  as  sinners.  It  is 
the  opposite  of  self-righteousness,  of  self-complacency  and  seK- 
confidence.  It  is  the  spirit  manifested  by  Job,  when  he  placed 
his  hand  upon  his  mouth,  and  his  mouth  in  the  dust,  and  said,  I 
abhor  myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes  ;  by  Isaiah  wlien  he 
said,  Woe  is  me  !  because  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell 
in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  unclean  lips  ;  and  by  the  publican,  who 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  703 

was  afraid  to  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes  unto  heaven,  but  smote 
upon  his  breast,  and  said,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner.  Such 
language  is  often  regarded  as  exaggerated  or  hypocritical.  It  is, 
however,  appropriate.  It  expresses  the  state  of  mind  which  can- 
not fail  to  be  produced  by  a  proper  apprehension  of  our  charac- 
ter as  sinners,  in  the  sight  of  a  just  and  holy  God.  Indeed  there 
is  no  language  which  can  give  adequate  expression  to  that  rational 
sense  of  sin  which  the  people  of  God  often  experience. 

4.  Importunity.  This  is  so  important  that  on  three  different 
occasions  our  Lord  impressed  its  necessity  upon  his  disciples. 
This  was  one  evident  design  of  the  history  of  the  Syrophenician 
woman,  who  coidd  not  be  prevented  from  crying,  "  Have  mercy 
on  me,  O  Lord,  thou  son  of  David."  (Matt.  xv.  22.)  Thus  also 
in  the  parable  of  the  unjust  judge,  who  said,  "•  Because  this 
widow  troLibleth  me,  I  will  avenge  her,  lest  by  her  continual  com- 
ing she  weary  me.  And  the  Lord  said.  Hear  what  the  unjust 
judge  saith.  And  shall  not  God  avenge  his  own  elect,  which  cry 
day  and  night  unto  Him,  though  He  bear  long  with  them  ?  I 
tell  you  that  He  -will  avenge  them  speedily."  (Luke  xviii.  5-8.) 
Again  in  Luke  xi.  5-8,  we  read  of  the  man  who  refused  to  give 
his  friend  bread,  of  whom  Christ  said,  "  Though  he  will  not  rise 
and  give  him,  because  he  is  his  friend,  yet  because  of  his  impor- 
tunity he  will  rise  and  give  him  as  many  as  he  needeth."  God 
deals  with  us  as  a  wise  benefactor.  He  requires  that  we  should 
appreciate  the  value  of  the  blessings  for  which  we  ask,  and  that 
we  should  manifest  a  proper  earnestness  of  desire.  If  a  man 
begs  for  his  own  life  or  for  the  life  of  one  dear  to  him,  there  is  no 
repressing  his  importunity.  He  will  not  be  refused.  If  the  life 
of  the  body  is  to  be  thus  earnestly  sought,  can  we  expect  that  the 
life  of  the  soul  will  be  granted  to  those  who  do  not  seek  it  with 
importunate  earnestness. 

5.  Submission.  Every  man  who  duly  appreciates  his  relation 
to  God,  will,  no  matter  what  his  request,  be  disposed  to  say, 
"  Lord,  not  my  will  but  thine  be  done."  Even  a  child  feels  the 
propriety  of  subjecting  his  will  in  all  his  requests  to  his  earthly 
father.  How  much  more  should  we  submit  to  the  will  of  our 
Father  in  heaven.  He  alone  knows  what  is  best ;  granting  our 
request  might,  in  many  cases,  be  our  destruction.  Our  Lord  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane  set  us  an  example  in  this  matter,  that 
should  never  be  forgotten. 

6.  Faith.  We  must  beheve.  (a.)  That  God  is.  (/^)  That 
He  is  able  to  hear  and  answer  our  prayers,     (c.)  That  He  is  dis- 


704         PART   III.     Ch.   XX  —THE   MEANS    OF   GRACE. 

posed  to  answer  them.  (<7.)  That  He  certainly  will  answer 
them,  if  consistent  with  his  own  wise  purposes  and  with  our  best 
good.  For  this  faith  we  have  the  most  express  assurances  in  the 
Bible.  It  is  not  only  said,  "  Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive  ;  seek  and 
ye  shall  find,"  but  our  Lord  says  explicitly,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do."  (John  xiv.  13.)  And  again, 
"  If  two  of  you  shall  agi-ee  on  earth,  as  touching  anything  that 
they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven."  (Matt,  xviii.  19.)  All  the  promises  of  God  are  con- 
ditional. The  condition,  if  not  expressed,  is  implied.  It  cannot 
be  supposed  that  God  has  subjected  Himself  in  the  government 
of  the  world,  or  in  the  dispensation  of  his  gifts,  to  the  short- 
sighted wisdom  of  men,  by  promising,  without  condition,  to  do 
whatever  they  ask.  No  rational  man  could  wish  this  to  be  the 
case.  He  would  of  his  own  accord  supply  the  condition,  which, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  and  from  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
must  be  understood.  In  1  John  v.  14,  the  condition  elsewhere 
implied  is  expressed.  "  This  is  the  confidence  that  we  have  in 
Him,  that  if  we  ask  anything  according  to  his  will,  He  heareth 
us."  The  promise,  however,  gives  the  assurance  that  all  prayers 
offered  in  faith,  for  things  according  to  the  will  of  God,  will  be 
answered.  The  answer,  indeed,  may  be  given,  as  in  the  case  of 
Paul  when  he  prayed  to  be  delivered  from  the  thorn  in  the  flesh, 
in  a  way  we  do  not  expect.  But  the  answer  will  be  such  as  we, 
if  duly  enlightened,  would  ourselves  desire.  More  than  this  we 
need  not  wish.  Want  of  confidence  in  these  precious  promises  of 
God  ;  want  of  faith  in  his  disposition  and  readiness  to  hear  us,  is 
one  of  the  greatest  and  most  common  defects  in  the  prayers  of 
Christians.  Every  father  desires  the  confidence  of  his  children, 
and  is  grieved  by  any  evidence  of  distrust ;  and  God  is  our 
Father ;  He  demands  from  us  the  feelings  which  children  ought 
to  have  towards  their  earthly  parents. 

7.  The  prayers  of  Christians  must  be  offered  in  the  name  of 
Christ.  Our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples:  "Hitherto  have  ye  asked 
nothing  in  my  name :  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive."  (John  xvi.  24.) 
"  I  have  chosen  you  ....  that  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the 
Father  in  my  name.  He  may  give  it  you."  (xv.  Ifi.)  "  What- 
soever ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do,"  (xiv.  13.)  By 
"  the  name  of  God  "  is  meant  God  himself,  and  God  as  mani- 
fested in  his  relation  to  us.  Both  ideas  are  usually  united. 
Thus  to  believe  "in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  " 
is  to  believe  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  as  such  He 


§20.j  PRAYER.  ^  705 

is  manifested  as  tlie  only  Saviour  of  men.  To  act  in  the  name 
of  any  one  is  often  to  act  by  his  authority,  and  in  the  exercise  of 
his  power.  Thus  our  Lord  speaks  of  the  works  which  He  did 
"  in  his  Father's  name  ;  "  that  is,  by  the  Father's  authority  and 
in  the  exercise  of  his  efficiency.  And  of  the  Apostles  it  is  fre- 
quently said  that  they  wrought  miracles  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
meaning  that  the  miracles  were  wrought  by  his  authority  and 
power.  But  when  one  asks  a  favour  in  the  name  of  another,  the 
simple  meaning  is,  for  his  sake.  Regard  for  the  person  in  whose 
name  the  favour  is  requested,  is  relied  on  as  the  ground  on  which 
it  is  to  be  granted.  Therefore,  when  we  are  told  to  pray  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  we  are  required  to  urge  what  Christ  is  and  what 
He  has  done,  as  the  reason  why  we  should  be  heard.  We  are 
not  to  trust  to  our  own  merits,  or  our  own  character,  nor  even 
simply  to  God's  mercy  ;  we  are  to  plead  the  merits  and  worth  of 
Christ.  It  is  only  in  Him,  in  virtue  of  his  mediation  and  worth, 
that,  according  to  the  Gospel,  any  blessing  is  conferred  on  the 
apostate  children  of  men. 

Different  Kinds  of  Prayer. 

As  prayer  is  converse  with  God,  it  includes  those  spiritual  ex- 
ercises, those  goings  forth  of  the  soul  towards  God  in  thought  and 
feeling,  which  reveal  themselves  in  the  forms  of  reverence,  grati- 
tude, sorrow  for  sin,  sense  of  dependence,  and  obligation.  In 
this  sense,  the  man  who  lives  and  walks  with  God,  prays  always. 
He  fulfils  to  the  letter  the  injunction  "  Pray  without  ceasing."  It 
is  our  duty  and  high  privilege  to  have  this  constant  converse  with 
God.  The  heart  should  be  like  the  altar  of  incense,  on  which  the 
fire  never  went  out. 

It  is,  however,  a  law  of  our  nature  that  we  should  clothe  our 
thoughts  and  feelings  in  words.  And  therefore,  prayer  is  in  one 
form  speech.  Even  when  no  audible  utterance  is  given,  words  as 
the  clothing  or  expression  of  inward  states  are  present  to  the 
mind.  There  is  power,  however,  in  articulate  words.  The 
thought  or  feeling  is  more  distinct  and  vivid  even  to  ourselves, 
when  audibly  expressed.  Prayer,  in  this  sense,  is  usually  dis- 
tinguished as  secret,  social,  and  public.  It  would  be  a  great 
mistake,  if  a  Christian  should  act  on  the  assumption  tliat  the  life 
of  God  in  his  soul  could  be  adequately  preserved  by  that  form  of 
prayer,  which  consists  in  habitual  communion  with  God.  The  be- 
liever needs,  in  order  to  maintain  his  spiritual  liealth  and  vigour, 
regular  and  stated  seasons  of  prayer,  as  the  body  needs  its  daily 

VOL.  III.  45 


706       PART  III.   Ch.  XX. —  the  means  of  grace. 

meals.  "  When  thou  prayest,"  is  the  direction  given  by  our 
Lord,  "  enter  into  thy  closet,  and  when  thou  hast  shut  thy  door, 
pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret ;  and  thy  Father,  which 
seeth  in  secret,  shall  reward  thee  openly."  (Matt.  vi.  6.)  The 
Bible  presents  to  us  the  example  of  the  people  of  God,  and  of 
our  blessed  Lord  himself,  as  a  rule  of  conduct  on  this  subject. 
We  read  that  Christ  often  retired  for  the  purpose  of  prayer,  and 
not  unfrequently  spent  whole  nights  in  that  exercise.  If  the 
spotless  soul  of  Jesus  needed  these  seasons  of  converse  with  God, 
none  of  his  followers  should  venture  to  neglect  this  important 
means  of  grace.  Let  each  day,  at  least,  begin  and  end  with 
God. 

Social  prayer  includes  family  prayer,  and  prayer  in  the  assem- 
blies of  the  people  for  social  worship.  As  man's  nature  is  social, 
he  must  have  fellowship  with  his  fellow  men  in  all  that  concerns 
his  inward  and  outward  life.  No  man  lives,  or  can  live  for  him- 
self, in  religion  any  more  than  in  any  other  relation.  As  the 
family  is  the  most  intimate  bond  of  fellowship  among  men,  it  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  that  it  should  be  hallowed  by  religion. 
All  the  relations  of  parents,  children,  and  domestics  are  purified 
and  strengthened,  when  the  whole  household  is  statedly  assem- 
bled, morning  and  evening,  for  the  worship  of  God.  There  is  no 
substitute  for  this  divinely  appointed  means  of  promoting  family 
religion.  It  supposes,  indeed,  a  certain  amount  of  culture.  The 
head  of  the  family  should  be  able  to  read  the  Scriptures  as  well 
as  to  lead  in  the  prayer.  Those,  however,  who  cannot  do  the  for- 
mer, may  at  least  do  the  latter.  All  persons  subject  to  the  watch 
or  care  of  the  Church  should  be  required  to  maintain  in  their 
households  this  stated  worship  of  God.  The  character  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  state  depends  on  the  character  of  the  family. 
If  religion  dies  out  in  the  family,  it  cannot  elsewhere  be  main- 
tained. A  man's  responsibility  to  his  children,  as  well  as  to  God, 
binds  him  to  make  his  house  a  Bethel ;  if  not  a  Bethel,  it  will  be 
a  dwelling  place  of  evil  spirits. 

When  and  where  the  mass  of  the  people  were  so  ignorant  as 
to  be  incompetent  profitably  to  maintain  religious  services  in' their 
families,  it  was  natural  and  proper  for  the  Church  daily  to  open 
its  doors,  and  call  the  people  to  matins  and  vespers.  It  was  far 
better  to  have  this  opportunity  for  daily  worship,  than  that  such 
stated  service  should  be  neglected.  It  is  not  wise,  however,  to 
continue  a  custom  when  the  grounds  on  which  it  was  introduced 
no  longer  exist ;  or  to  make  a  church  ordinance  the  substitute 
for  a  divine  institution. 


d 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  707 

Public  Prayer. 

The  public  services  of  the  sanctuary  are  designed  for  worship 
and  instruction.  The  former  includes  prayer  and  singing  ;  the 
latter,  the  reading  the  word  of  God  and  preaching.  These  ele- 
ments should  be  preserved  in  due  proportion.  In  some  churches, 
instruction  is  made  entirely  subordinate  to  worship ;  twice  the 
time  being  devoted  to  the  latter  that  is  allotted  to  the  former. 
This  seems  to  be  contrary  to  the  Scriptural  rule.  Eaiowledge  in 
the  Bible  is  represented  as  the  essential  element  of  religion. 
There  can  be  no  true  worship  of  God  without  adequate  knowl- 
edge of  God ;  there  can  be  no  repentance,  faith,  or  hol}'^  living 
unless  the  truths  on  which  these  exercises  and  this  living-  are 
dependent  are  understood,  and  are  present  to  the  mind.  Religion 
is  a  reasonable,  that  is  (AoyiKi?)  a  rational  service,  with  which 
ignorance  is  incompatible.  Christian  ministers,  therefore,  are  al- 
ways in  the  New  Testament  called  StSao-xaA-o/,  teachers.  Their 
great  commission  received  from  Christ  was  "  to  teach  all  nations." 
The  Apostles,  therefore,  went  everywhere,  preaching.  Paul  says 
Christ  did  not  send  him  to  baptize,  or  to  perform  mere  religious 
services,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,  which  he  declared  to  be  the 
wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  No  human 
authority  could  have  transformed  Paul  from  a  preacher  into  an 
offerer  of  prayers.  It  was  not  until  pagan  ideas  of  worship  be- 
gan to  pervade  the  Church,  and  ministers  were  transmuted  from 
teachers  into  priests,  that  the  teaching  element  was  made  so  en- 
tirely subordinate  to  that  of  worship,  as  it  has  been  for  ages  in 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

While  teaching  should  be,  as  it  clearly  was  during  the  apos- 
toUc  age,  the  prominent  object  in  the  services  of  the  Lord's  day, 
the  importance  of  public  prayer  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 
This,  it  is  often  said,  is  the  weak  point  in  the  Presbyterian  Sab- 
bath service.  This  is  probably  true.  That  is,  it  is  probably  true 
that  there  are  more  good  preachers  than  good  prayers.  The 
main  reason  for  this  is,  that  the  minister  devotes  a  great  part  of 
the  labour  of  the  week  to  the  preparation  of  his  sermon,  and  not 
a  thought  to  his  prayers.  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  one 
should  be  better  than  the  other. 

In  order  that  this  part  of  divine  service  should  be  conducted 
to  the  edification  of  the  people,  it  is  necessary,  (1.)  That  the  of- 
ficiating minister  should  have  a  truly  devout  spirit ;  that  the  feel- 
ings and  desires,  of  which  the  prayers  are  the  utterance,  should 


708       PART  m.   Ch.  XX.— the  means  of  grace. 

be  in  exercise  in  his  own  heart.  (2.)  Tliat  his  mind  and  memory 
should  be  well  stored  with  the  thoughts  and  language  of  Scrip- 
ture. Holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Their  utterances,  whether  in  adoration,  thanksgiving, 
confession,  or  supplication,  were  controlled  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Hence  they  express  the  mind  of  the  Spirit ;  they  are  the  most  ap- 
propriate vehicles  for  the  expression  of  those  feelings  and  desires 
which  the  Spirit  awakens  in  the  minds  of  God's  people.  No 
prayers,  therefore,  are  more  edifying,  other  things  being  equal, 
than  those  which  abound  in  the  appropriate  use  of  Scriptural  lan- 
guage. (3.)  The  prayer  should  be  well  ordered,  so  as  to  em- 
brace all  the  proper  parts  and  topics  of  prayer  in  due  proportion. 
This  will  prevent  its  being  rambling,  diffuse,  or  repetitious.  (4.) 
It  should  also  be  suited  to  the  occasion,  whether  that  be  the  ordi- 
nary service  on  the  Lord's  day,  or  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, or  the  special  service  on  days  of  thanksgiving  or  of  fasting 
and  humiliation.  (5.)  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  lan- 
guage employed  should  be  simple,  solemn,  and  correct.  (6.)  The 
prayers  should  be  short.  Undue  length  in  this  service  is  gener- 
ally owing,  not  more  to  diffuseness  than  to  useless  repetitions. 

Prayer  as  a  Means  of  Grace. 

Means  of  grace,  as  before  stated,  are  those  means  which  God 
has  ordained  for  the  end  of  communicating  the  life-giving  and 
Banctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  to  the  souls  of  men.  Such  are 
the  word  and  sacraments,  and  such  is  prayer.  It  has  not  only  the 
relation  which  any  other  cause  has  to  the  end  for  which  it  was 
appointed,  and  thus  is  the  condition  on  which  the  blessings  of  God, 
providential  or  spiritual,  are  bestowed  ;  but  it  brings  us  near  to 
God,  who  is  the  source  of  all  good.  Fellowship  with  Him,  con- 
verse with  Him,  calls  into  exercise  all  gracious  affections,  rever- 
ence, love,  gratitude,  submission,  faith,  joy,  and  devotion.  When 
the  soul  thus  draws  near  to  God,  God  draws  near  to  it,  mani- 
fests his  glory,  sheds  abroad  his  love,  and  imparts  that  peace  which 
passes  all  understanding.  Our  Lord  says,  "  If  a  man  love  m.e,  he 
will  keep  my  words :  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  (John  xiv.  23.) 
In  such  fellowship,  the  soul  must  be  holy  and  must  be  blessed. 

The  Poioer  of  Prayer. 
The  course  of  human  events  is  not  controlled  by  physical  force 
alone.     There  are  other  powers  at  work  in  the  government  of  the 


§  20.]  PRAYER.  709 

world.  There  is  the  power  of  ideas,  true  or  false  ;  the  power  of 
truth  ;  the  power  of  love  and  human  sympathy  ;  the  power  of  con- 
science ;  and  above  all,  the  Supreme  Power,  immanent  in  the 
world  as  well  as  over  it,  which  is  an  intelligent,  voluntary,  per- 
sonal power,  cooperating  with  and  controlling  the  operations  of  all 
creatures,  without  violating  their  nature.  This  Supreme  Power 
is  roused  into  action  by  prayer,  in  a  way  analogous  to  that  in 
which  the  energies  of  a  man  are  called  into  action  by  the  entreat- 
ies of  his  fellow-men.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  ;  it  is 
perfectly  consistent  vtdtli  reason,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  whole 
history  of  the  world,  and.  especially  of  the  Church.  Moses  by 
his  prayer  saved  the  Israelites  from  destruction  ;  at  the  prayer 
of  Samuel  the  army  of  the  Philistines  was  dispersed  ;  "  Elias 
was  a  man  subject  to  like  passions  as  we  are,  and  he  prayed  ear- 
nestly that  it  might  not  rain  :  and  it  rained  not  on  the  earth  by 
the  space  of  three  years  and  six  months.  And  he  prayed  again, 
and  the  heavens  gave  rain,  and  the  earth  brought  forth  her  fruit." 
These  facts  are  referred  to  by  the  Apostle  James,  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  that  the  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much. 
Paul  constantly  begged  his  Christian  brethren  to  pray  for  him, 
and  directed  that  prayer  should  "  be  made  for  all  men :  for  kings, 
and  for  all  that  are  in  authority  ;  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and 
peaceable  life  in  all  godliness  and  honesty."  This  of  course  sup- 
poses that  prayer  is  a  power.  Queen  Mary  of  Scotland  was  not 
beside  herself,  when  she  said  she  feared  the  prayers  of  John  Knox, 
more  than  an  army.  Once  admit  the  doctrine  of  theism,  that  is 
of  the  existence  of  a  personal  God,  and  of  his  constant  control 
over  all  things  out  of  Himself,  and  all  ground  for  doubt  as  to  the 
efficacy  of  prayer  is  removed,  and  it  remains  to  us,  as  it  has  been 
to  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages,  the  great  source  of  spiritual  joy 
and  strength,  of  security  for  the  present  and  confidence  for  the 
future.  The  Forty-sixth  Psalm  still  stands  :  "  The  LoKD  of 
Hosts  is  with  us  ;  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our  refuge." 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY 


PART    IV. 
ESCHATOLOGY. 


I 


i 


CHAPTER    I. 

STATE   OF  THE   SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

§  1.  Protestant  Doctrine. 

The  Protestant  doctrine  on  the  state  of  tlie  soul  after  death 
includes,  j&rst  of  all,  the  continued  conscious  existence  of  the  soul 
after  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  This  is  opposed,  not  only  to 
the  doctrine  that  the  soul  is  merely  a  function  of  the  body  and 
perishes  with  it,  but  also  to  the  doctrine  of  the  sleep  of  the  soul 
during  the  interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

The  former  doctrine  belongs  to  the  theory  of  materialism,  and 
stands  or  falls  with  it.  If  there  be  no  substance  but  matter,  and 
no  force  but  such  as  is  the  phenomenon  of  matter  ;  and  if  the 
form  in  which  physical  force  manifests  itself  as  mind,  or  mental 
action,  depends  on  the  highly  organized  matter  of  the  brain, 
then  when  the  brain  is  disorganized  the  mind  ceases  to  exist. 
But  if  the  soul  and  body  are  two  distinct  substances,  then  the 
dissolution  of  the  latter  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  end  of 
the  conscious  existence  of  the  former. 

There  is  another  view  on  this  subject  adopted  by  many  who 
are  not  materialists,  but  who  still  hold  that  mind  cannot  act  or 
manifest  itself  without  a  material  organ.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
late  Isaac  Taylor  says  that  as  extension  is  an  attribute  of  matter, 
the  soul  without  a  body  cannot  be  extended.  But  extension  is  a 
relation  to  space  ;  what  is  not  extended  is  consequently  nowhere. 
"  We  might  as  well,"  he  says,  "  say  of  a  pure  spirit  that  it  is 
hard,  heavy,  or  red,  or  that  it  is  a  cubic  foot  in  dimensions,  as 
sav  that  it  is  here  or  there,  or  that  it  has  come,  and  is  ffone."' 
"  When  we  talk  of  absolute  immateriality,  and  wish  to  withdraw 
mind  altogether  from  matter,  we  must  no  longer  allow  ourselves 
to  imagine  that  it  is,  or  that  it  can  be,  in  any  place,  or  that  it 
has  any  kind  of  relationship  to  the  visible  and  extended  uni- 
verse." In  like  manner,  he  argues  that  mind  is  dependent 
upon  its  corporeity,  or  union  with  matter,  for  its  relationship  to 
time.  A  pure  spirit  could  not  tell  the  difference  between  a  mo- 
ment and  a  century  ;  it  could  have  no  perception  of  the  equable 


714     PART  IV.     Cn.  I— STATE    OF   SOUL    AFTER  DEATH. 


1 


flow  of  duration,  for  that  is  a  knowledge  drawn  from  the  external 
world  and  its  regular  motions.  To  its  union  with  matter,  mind 
is  indebted  also  for  its  sensibility  or  sensations,  for  its  power  over 
matter,  for  its  imaginative  emotions,  and  for  its  "  defined,  recog- 
nizable individuality,"  and  of  course  for  its  personality.  The 
soul  after  death,  therefore,  must  either  cease  its  activity,  at  least 
in  reference  to  all  out  of  itself,  or  be  furnished  at  once  with  a 
new  body.  The  latter  assumption  is  the  one  commonly  adopted. 
"  Have  the  dead  ceased  to  exist  ?  "  he  asks,  "  Have  those  who  are 
fallen  asleep  perished  ?  No  ;  —  for  there  is  a  spiritual  body,  and 
another  vehicle  of  human  nature,  as  well  as  a  natural  body  ;  and, 
therefore,  the  dissolution  of  this  animal  structure  leaves  the  life 
untouched.  The  animal  body  is  not  itself  the  life,  nor  is  it  the 
cause  of  life  ;  nor  again  is  the  spiritual  body  the  hfe,  nor  the 
cause  of  it ;  but  the  one  as  well  as  the  other  are  the  instruments 
of  the  mind,  and  the  necessary  medium  of  every  productive  exer- 
cise of  its  faculties."  ^ 

On  this  theory  of  the  dependence  of  mind  on  matter,  "  for 
every  productive  exercise  of  its  faculties,"  for  its  individuality, 
and  its  susceptibilities,  it  may  be  remarked,  (1.)  That  the  the- 
ory is  admitted  to  be  untrue  in  relation  to  God.  He  has  no 
body  ;  and  He  can  act  and  be  acted  upon,  and  his  activity  is  pro- 
ductive. If  such  be  the  case  with  God  who  is  a  pure  spirit,  it  is 
altogether  arbitrary  to  deny  that  it  is  true  with  regard  to  the 
human  soul.  Man  as  a  spirit  is  of  the  same  nature  with  God. 
He  is  like  Him  in  all  that  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  a  spirit. 
(2.)  The  theory  has  no  support  from  Scripture,  and,  therefore,  has 
no  right  to  intrude  itself  into  the  explanation  of  Scriptural  doc- 
trines. The  Bible  never  attributes  corporeity  to  angels ;  yet  it 
ascribes  to  them  a  "  ubi "  ;  speaks  of  their  coming  and  going ; 
and  of  their  being  mighty  in  power  to  produce  effects  in  the  ma- 
terial and  spiritual  worlds.  It  never  speaks  of  man's  having  any 
other  body  besides  his  earthly  tabernacle,  and  the  body  wliich  he 
is  to  have  at  the  resurrection.  And  yet  it  speaks  of  the  soul  as 
active  and  conscious  when  absent  from  the  body  and  present  Avith 
the  Lord.  (3.)  If  the  soul  is  a  substance  it  has  power,  power  of 
self-manifestation,  and  productive  power  according  to  its  nature. 
Electricity  may  be  a  force  in  nature  manifested  to  us,  in  our  pres- 
ent state,  only  under  certain  conditions.  But  that  does  not  prove 
that  it  is  active  only  under  those  conditions,  or  that  beings  consti- 

1  Physical  Theory  o/  Another  Life.     By  Isaac  Taylor.     New  York.  1862,  p.  23,  and 
the  whole  of  chap.  ii. 


§1]  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.  715 

tuted  differently  from  what  we  are,  may  not  be  cognizant  of  its 
activity.  It  is  enough,  however,  that  the  theory  in  question  is 
extra-scriptural,  and  therefore  has  no  authority  in  matters  of 
faith. 

It  is  no  less  evident  that  according  to  the  pantheistic  theory, 
in  all  its  phases,  which  regards  man  as  only  one  of  the  transient 
forms  of  God's  existence,  there  is  no  room  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
conscious  existence  of  the  soul  after  death.  The  race  is  immor- 
tal, but  the  individual  man  is  not.  Trees  and  flowers  cover  the 
earth  from  generation  to  generation  ;  yet  the  same  flower  blooms 
but  once.  The  mass  of  men  whose  convictions,  on  such  subjects, 
are  founded  on  their  moral  and  religious  nature,  have  in  all  ages 
believed  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul  after  death.  And 
that  universality  of  belief  is  valid  evidence  of  the  truth  believed. 
But  men  whose  opinions  are  under  the  control  of  the  speculative 
understanding,  have  never  arrived  at  any  settled  conviction  on 
this  subject.  To  be,  or  not  to  be  ?  was  a  question  speculation 
could  not  answer.  The  dying  Hume  said  he  was  about  to  take 
a  leap  in  the  dark.  The  continued  existence  of  the  soul  after 
death  is  a  matter  of  divine  revelation.  It  was  part  of  the  faith 
of  the  Church  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  revelation  of  all 
the  great  doctrines  which  concern  the  destiny  and  salvation  of 
men  has  been  indeed  progressive.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  matter 
of  surprise  that  the  doctrine  of  the  future  state  is  much  less 
clearly  unfolded  in  the  Old  Testament  than  in  the  New.  Still  it 
is  there.  When  the  Apostle  Paul  (2  Tim.  i.  10)  speaks  of  "  Our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  Gospel,"  he  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  saying  that  the  future  life  was  unknown,  as  Arch- 
bishop Whately  argues,  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  This 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  most  explicit  declarations  else- 
where. It  is  often  said  that  Christ  came  to  preach  the  Gospel, 
to  make  propitiation  for  sin,  and  to  reveal  the  way  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  God.  Paul  says  in  Galatians  iii.  23,  "  before  faith 
came  we  were  kept  under  the  law."  Yet  he  strenuously  insists 
that  the  Gospel,  or  plan  of  salvation  which  he  taught,  was  taught 
by  the  law  and  prophets  (Rom.  iii.  21)  ;  and  that  the  patriarchs 
were  saved  by  faith  in  the  same  promise  on  which  sinners  are 
now  called  upon  to  rely.  What  was  imperfectly  revealed  under 
the  old  economy,  is  clearly  revealed  under  the  new.  This  is  all 
that  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  Gospel  bringing  new 
truths  to  light,  are  intended   to  teach.     Christ  shed  a  flood  of 


716  PART  IV.  Ch.  I. —  state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

light  on  the  darkness  beyond  the  grave.  Objects  before  dimly 
discerned  in  that  gloom,  now  stand  clearly  unveiled  ;  so  that  it 
may  well  be  said  He  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light.  He 
revealed  the  nature  of  this  future  state,  and  showed  how,  for  the 
people  of  God,  that  state  was  one  of  life.  It  may  be  observed  in 
passing,  that  many  Christian  writers  Avho  speak  of  the  doctiine 
of  a  future  life  being  unknown,  at  least  to  the  patriarchs,  and  to 
the  writers  of  the  Psalms,  mean  "  the  Christian  doctrine  "  on 
that  subject.  They  do  not  intend  to  deny  that  the  people  of 
God  from  the  beginning  believed  in  the  conscious  existence  of  the 
soul  after  death.  This  Hengstenberg,  for  example,  distinctly 
asserts  concerning  himself.^ 

Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life  revealed  under  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  The  first  argument  on  this  subject  is  an  a  priori  one.  That 
the  Hebrews,  God's  chosen  people,  the  recipients  and  custodians 
of  a  supernatural  revelation,  should  be  the  only  nation  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  in  whose  religion  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state 
had  no  place,  would  be  a  solecism.  It  is  absolutely  incredible, 
for  it  supposes  human  nature  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrews  to  be 
radically  different  from  what  it  is  in  other  men. 

2.  Instead  of  the  Hebrews  having  lower  views  of  man  than  other 
nations,  they  alone  were  possessed  of  the  truth  concerning  his  origin 
and  nature.  They  had  been  taught  from  the  begiiming  that  man 
was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and,  therefore,  like  God,  of  the 
same  nature  as  a  spirit,  and  capable  of  fellowship  with  his  maker. 
They  had  also  been  taught  that  man  was  ci-eated  immortal  ;  that 
the  death  even  of  the  body,  was  a  punishment  ;  that  the  sen- 
tence of  death  (in  the  sense  of  dissolution)  concerned  only  the 
body.  "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  The 
soul  is  not  dust,  and  therefore,  according  to  the  earliest  theology 
of  the  Hebrews,  was  not  to  return  to  dust ;  it  was  to  return  to 
God  who  gave  it. 

3.  We  accordingly  find  that  throughout  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  the  highest  views  are  presented  of  the  nature  and  des- 
tiny of  man.  He  is  the  child  of  God,  destined  to  enjoy  his  fel- 
lowship and  favour  ;  the  possessions  and  enjoyments  of  earth  ai'e 
ahvays  repi-osented  as  temporary  and  insignificant,  not  adapted 
to  meet  the  soul's  necessities ;  they  were  taught  not  to  envy  the 

1  Ccmmenlar  iiber  die  Psalmen,  von  G.  W.  Hengstenberg.  Abhandlung  No.  7.  Zur 
Glaubenskhre  rfer  Psalmen,  edit.  Berlin,  1847,  vol.  iv.  part  2.  On  p.  321,  he  says,  "  When 
we  deny  the  doctrine  of  immortality  to  the  writers  of  the  Psalms,  it  is  in  the  Christian 
sense"  of  the  word. 


§  1  ]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRIXE.  717 

wicked  in  their  prosperity,  but  to  look  to  God  as  tLeir  portion  ; 
they  were  led  to  say,  "  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and 
there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  besides  thee ;  "  and  "  T  had 
rather  be  a  door-keeper  in  the  house  of  my  God,  than  to  dwell 
in  the  tents  of  mckedness."  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  right- 
eous are  always  represented  as  strangers  and  pilgrims  upon  the 
earth,  whose  home  and  whose  reward  are  not  in  this  world ;  that 
their  portion  is  in  another  world,  and,  therefore,  that  it  is  better  to 
be  the  humblest  and  most  afflicted  of  God's  people  than  to  be  the 
most  prosperous  of  the  wicked.  The  judgments  of  God  are  repre- 
sented as  falling  on  the  Avicked  in  a  future  state,  and  thus  effect- 
ually vindicating  the  justice  of  God  in  his  dealings  with  men. 
The  Psalmist  said,  he  was  envious  at  the  foolish,  when  he  saw 
the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  until  he  went  into  the  sanctuary  of 
God  and  understood  their  end.     In  contrasting  his  own  state  and 

prospects  with  theirs,  he  said,  "  I  am  continually  with  thee 

Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me 
to  glory."  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  23,  24.)  Such  is  the  drift  and  spirit  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Their  whole  tendency  was  to 
raise  the  thoughts  of  the  people  from  the  present  and  turn  them 
towards  the  future  ;  to  make  men  look  not  at  the  things  seen,  but 
at  the  thino;s  unseen  and  eternal. 

4.  The  dead  in  the  Old  Testament  are  always  spoken  of  as 
going  to  their  fathers,  as  descending  into  "  Slieol,"  i.  e.,  into  the 
invisible  state,  which  the  Greeks  called  Hades.  Sheol  is  repre- 
sented as  the  general  receptacle  or  abode  of  departed  spirits,  who 
were  there  in  a  state  of  consciousness ;  some  in  a  state  of  misery, 
others  in  a  state  of  happiness.  In  all  these  points  the  pagan  idea 
of  Hades  corresponds  to  the  Scriptural  idea  of  Sheol.  All  souls 
went  into  Hades,  some  dwelling  in  Tartarus,  others  in  Elysium. 
That  the  Hebrews  regarded  the  souls  of  the  dead  as  retaining 
their  consciousness  and  activity  is  obvious  from  the  practice  of 
necromancy,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  of  the  appearance  of 
Samuel  to  Saul,  as  recorded  in  1  Samuel  xxviii.  The  represen- 
tation given  in  Isaiah  xiv.  of  the  descent  of  the  King  of  Babylon, 
when  all  the  dead  rose  to  meet  and  to  reproach  him,  takes  for 
granted  and  authenticates  the  popular  belief  in  the  continued 
conscious  existence  of  departed  spirits. 

5.  In  several  passages  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  is  clearly  asserted.  We  know  upon  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament  that  the  Sixteenth  Psalm  is  to  be  understood 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  with  which,  the  Apostle  teaches  us, 


718  PART  IV.  Ch.  I- state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

that  of  his  people  is  inseparably  connected.  His  soul  was  not  to 
be  left  in  Sheol ;  nor  was  his  body  to  see  corruption.  In  Psalm 
xvii.  15,  after  having  described  the  cruelty  and  prosperity  of  the 
wicked,  the  Psalmist  says,  in  regard  to  himself :  "  I  will  behold 
thy  face  in  righteousness :  I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake, 
with  thy  likeness."  Isaiah  xxvi.  19,  says  :  "  Thy  dead  men  shall 
live,  together  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and 
sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust,  for  my  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs, 
and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead."  (Dan.  xii.  2.)  "-And 
many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake ; 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt. And  they  that  be  wise,  shall  shine  as  the  brightness' 
of  the  firmament ;  and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteous- 
ness, as  the  stars  forever  and  ever."  These  prophetic  declara- 
tions are  indeed  often  explained  as  referring  to  the  restoration  of 
the  nation  from  a  state  of  depression  to  one  of  prosperity  and 
glory.  But  the  language  employed,  the  context  in  which  there 
is  clear  reference  to  the  Messianic  period,  and  the  sanction  given 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  litera 
sense  of  the  words  here  used,  are  considerations  decisive  in  favour 
of  the  ordinary  interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  Delitzsch,* 
Hengstenberg,2  Oehler,^  and  many  others  of  the  modern  inter- 
preters. Even  Mr.  Alger,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  life,  concedes  the  point  so  far  as  the  passage  in  Daniel 
is  concerned.  "  No  one,"  he  says,  "  can  deny  that  a  judgment,! 
in  which  reward  and  punishment  shall  be  distributed  according 
to  merit,  is  here  clearly  foretold."*  Those  German  writers  whose 
views  of  inspiration  are  so  low  as  to  enable  them  to  interpret 
each  book  of  the  Bible  as  the  production  of  an  individual  mind, 
and  to  represent  the  several  writers  as  teaching  different  doc- 
trines, in  many  cases  take  the  ground  that  in  the  early  books  oi 
the  Scriptures,  the  simple  fact  of  a  future  life  is  taken  for  granted, 
but  not  taught,  and  that  nothing  Avas  made  known  as  to  the 
nature  of  that  life.     Thus  Schultz  says,  "  That   all  the  books  ol 

1  Commentar  iiher  den  Psalter,  Leipzig,  1860,  vol.  ii.  p.  420. 

2  Commentar  ilber  die  Psalmen,  Abhandlung  No.  7.  Berlin,  1847,  vol.  iv.  part  2,  p 
273  ff. 

8  Veteris  Testamenti  Sententia  de  Rebus  post  Mortem  Futuris.  G.  F.  Oehler,  Stuttgaitl 
1846,  p.  50.  j 

*  A  Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life,  with  a  Complete  Bibliograp^ ^  Oj\ 
the  Subject  By  William  Roiinseville  Alger.  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  149.  The  Appendixij 
an  instructive  volume,  being  "  A  Catalogue  of  Works  relating  to  the  Nature,  Origin,  ami 
De.stiny  of  the  Soul.  The  Titles  classified  and  arranged  chronologically,  with  Notes  aiuj 
Indexes  of  Authors  and  Subjects.    By  Ezra  Abbot,"  is  a  marvel  of  ability  and  learning. 


§  1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  719 

the  Old  Testament  assume  that  men  are  in  some  way  or  other  to 
live  after  death.  Even  in  the  Pentateuch  this  is  taken  for 
granted.  It  is  not  taught,  but  assumed  as  a  self-evident  truth, 
immanent  in  the  consciousness  of  the  people."  ^ 

6.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  we  have  in  the  New  Testament 
an  inspired,  and,  therefore,  an  infallible  commentary  on  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  From  that  commentary  we  learn  that  the 
Old  Testament  contains  much  which  otherwise  we  should  never 
have  discovered.  Not  only  is  the  compass  of  the  truths  revealed 
to  the  fathers  shown  to  be  far  greater  than  the  simple  words 
would  suggest,  but  truths  are  declared  to  be  therein  taught,  which, 
without  divine  assistance,  we  could  not  have  discovered.  There 
is  another  thing  concerning  the  faith  of  the  Old  Testament  saints 
to  be  taken  into  consideration.  They  may  have  understood,  and 
probably  did  understand  their  Scriptures  far  better  than  we  are 
disposed  to  think  possible.  They  had  the  advantage  of  the  con- 
stant presence  of  inspired  men  to  lead  them  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  written  word,  and  they  enjoyed  the  inward  teaching 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  that  spiritual  illumination  availed  in 
their  case,  we  cannot  tell ;  but  we  know  that  now  the  humble 
Christian  who  submits  himself  to  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit,  un- 
derstands the  Bible  far  better  than  any  mere  vei-bal  critic. 

We  have  then  in  the  New  Testament  the  most  explicit  dec- 
larations, not  only  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  was  revealed 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  that  from  the  beginning  it  was  part 
of  the  faith  of  the  people  of  God.  Our  Lord  in  refuting  the 
Sadducees,  who  denied  not  only  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but 
also  the  conscious  existence  of  man  after  death,  and  the  existence 
of  any  merely  spiritual  beings,  appeals  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
Pentateuch,  the  authority  of  which  the  Sadducees  admitted,  God 
is  familiarly  called  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  but 
as  He  is  the  God  not  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living,  the  designa- 
tion referred  to  proves  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  now 
living,  and  living  too  in  the  fellowship  and  enjoyment  of  God. 
"  Christ,"  says  Mr.  Alger,  whom  we  quote  the  rather  because  he 
belongs  to  the  class  of  men  who  call  themselves  liberal  Chris- 
tians,'^ "•  Christ  once  reasoned  with  the  Sadducees  '  as  touching 

1  Die  Vornussetzungen  der  christUchen  Lehre  von  der  Unsterblichkeit  dargestellt  von 
Hermann  Schultz,  Dr.  der  Philosophie,  Licent.  der  Theologie,  etc.,  GiJttingen,  1861,  p. 
207. 

2  On  page  438,  he  says:  "The  essence  of  rationalism  is  the  affirmation  that  neither  the 
fathers,  nor  the  Church,  nor  the  Scriptures,  nor  all  of  them  together,  can  rightfully  estab- 
lish any  proposition  opposed  to  the  logic  of  sound  philosophy,  the  principles  of  reason,  and 


T20  PART  IV.  Cn.  I  — STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

the  dead,  that  they  rise  ;'  in  other  words,  that  the  souls  of  men 
upon  the  decease  of  the  body  pass  into  another  and  an  unend- 
ing state  of  existence  :  — '  Neither  can  they  die  any  more  ;  for 
they  are  equal  with  the  angels,  and  are  the  children  of  God, 
being  children  of  the  resurrection.'  His  argument  was,  that  God 
is  the  God  of  the  living,  not  of  the  dead ;  that  is,  the  spiritual 
nature  of  man  involves  such  a  relationship  with  God  as  pledges 
his  attributes  to  its  perpetuity.  The  thought  which  supports  this 
reasoning  penetrates  far  into  the  soul  and  grasps  the  moral  rela- 
tions between  man  and  God.  It  is  most  interesting,  viewed 
as  the  unqualified  affirmation  by  Jesus,  of  the  doctrine  of  a, 
future  life  which  shall  be  deathless."  ^  The  reasoning  of  Christ, 
however,  is  not  only  an  affirmation  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  deathless  life,  but  an  affirmation  also  that  that  doc- 
trine is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  words  which  He 
quotes  are  contained  in  the  book  of  Exodus  ;  and  those  words, 
as  explained  by  Him,  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  and  un- 
ending life  of  the  righteous. 

That  the  Jews  when  Christ  came,  universally,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  believed  in  a  future  life,  is  be- 
yond dispute.  The  Jews  at  this  period  were  divided  into  three 
sects  :  the  Sadducees,  who  were  materialistic  skeptics,  believing 
neither  in  the  resurrection,  nor  in  angels,  nor  in  sjjirits  ;  the  Es- 
senes,  who  were  a  philosophical  and  ascetic  sect,  believing  that 
the  souls  of  the  just  being  freed  at  death  from  the  prison  of  the 
body,  rejoice  and  are  borne  aloft  where  a'  happy  life  forever  is 
decreed  to  the  virtuous ;  but  the  wicked  are  assigned  to  eternal 
punishment  in  a  dark  cold  place  ;  ^  and  the  Pharisees,  who,  as 
we  know  from  the  New  Testament,  believed  in  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  in  the  sense  in  which  Paul  believed  that  doctrine 
(Acts  xxvi.  6),  for  he  claimed  in  his  controversy  with  the  Sad- 

the  evident  truth  of  nature.  Around  this  thesis  the  battle  has  been  fought  and  the  victory 
won ;  and  it  will  stand  with  spreading  favour  as  long  as  there  are  unenslaved  and  cultivated 
minds  in  the  world.  This  position  is,  in  logical  necessity,  and  as  a  general  thing  in  fact, 
that  of  the  large  though  loosely-cohering  body  of  believers  known  as  '  Liberal  Christians;' 
and  it  is  tacitly  held  by  still  larger  and  evergrowing  numbers  nominally  connected 
with  sects  that  ofhcially  eschew  it  with  horror."  Mr.  Alger  doubtless  considered  "this  as 
simply  a  declaration  of  independence  of  human  authority  in  matters  of  religion.  To 
other,  and  perhaps  to  wiser  men,  it  sounds  like  a  declaration  of  independence  of  God,  the 
infinite  Reason;  as  an  assertion  that  the  Infinite  God  can  teach  him  nothing;  or,  at  least, 
that  He  cannot  so  authenticate  his  teachings  as  to  render  them  authoritative.  The  men 
are  to  be  pitied  who  have  no  better  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  of  the  present  and  the 
future  than  is  to  be  found  in  themselves. 

1  Alger,  uf.  supra,  p.  340. 

2  Josephus,  be  Bella  Judaico,  ii.  viii.  11;    Works,  edit.  Leipzig,  1827,  vol.  v.  pp.  215, 
216,  [165.] 


§  1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  721 

ducees,  that  the  Pharisees  were  on  his  side.  They  believed  that 
the  soul  was  in  its  nature  immortal ;  that  the  righteous  only  are 
happy  after  death,  and  that  the  wicked  are  eternally  miserable. 
That  the  Jews  derived  their  doctrine  from  their  own  Scriptures  is 
plain,  (1.)  Because  they  admitted  no  other  source  of  religious 
knowledge.  The  Scriptures  were  their  rule  of  faith,  as  those 
Scriptures  had  been  understood  and  explained  by  their  fathers. 
(2.)  There  is  no  other  known  source  from  which  the  doctrine  of 
a  future  state  as  held  by  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ,  could 
have  been  obtained.  The  doctrines,  whether  religious  or  philo- 
sophical, of  their  heathen  neighbours  were  antagonistic  to  their 
own.  This  is  true  even  of  the  doctrines  of  Zoroaster,  which  in 
some  points  had  most  affinity  with  those  of  the  Jews.  (8.)  The 
inspired  Avriters  of  the  New  Testament  teach  the  same  doctrines, 
and  affirm  that  their  knowledge  was  derived  not  from  men,  but 
from  the  revelation  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  as  made  by  Christ. 

A  few  of  the  passages  in  which  the  Apostles  teach  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  life  was  known  to  the  patriarchs  before  the 
coming  of  Christ,  are  the  following  :  Paul  was  arraigned  before 
the  council  in  Jerusalem,  and  "Avhen  Paul  perceived  that  the 
one  part  were  Sadducees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,  he  cried  out 
in  the  council,  Men  and  brethren,  I  am  a  Pharisee,  the  son  of  a 
Pharisee :  of  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am  called  in 
question."  (Acts  xxiii.  6.)  He  here  declares  that  in  the  dispute 
between  these  two  parties,  on  the  question  whether  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  life  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  which  both  parties  acknowledged,  he  sided  with 
the  Pharisees.  Again  in  his  speech  before  Agrippa,  he  said  : 
"  I  stand,  and  am  judged  for  tlie  hope  of  the  promise  made  of 
God  unto  our  fathers  :  unto  which  promise  our  twelve  tribes  in- 
stantly serving  God  day  and  night,  hope  to  come.  For  which 
hope's  sake,  King  Agrippa,  I  am  accused  of  the  Jews.  Why 
should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you,  that  God  should 
raise  the  dead?"  (Acts  xxvi.  6-8.)  The  promise  to  Avhich  he 
refers  is  the  promise  of  redemption  through  tlie  Messiah,  which 
redemption  includes  the  deliverance  of  his  people  from  the  power 
of  death  and  other  evil  consequences  of  sin.  This  was  tlie  prom- 
ise to  which  the  twelve  tribes  hoped  to  come.  The  belief,  there- 
fore, in  a  future  life  is  thus  declared  to  have  been  a  part  of  the 
religion  of  the  whole  Hebrew  nation. 

In  Galatians  iii.  8,  the  Apostle  says,  God  "  preached  before 

VOL.  III.  46 


722  PART  IV.  Cii.  I  — STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

the  gospel  unto  Abraham."  The  Gospel,  however,  in  the  Apos- 
tle's sense  of  the  term,  is  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  ;  and  sal- 
vation is  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law  and  restoration 
to  the  image  and  favour  of  God.  This  of  necessity  involves  the 
idea  of  a  future  life ;  of  a  future  state  of  misery  from  which  the 
soul  is  delivered,  and  of  a  future  state  of  glory  and  blessedness 
into  which  it  is  introduced.  In  teaching,  therefore,  that  men  be- 
fore the  coming  of  Christ  needed  and  desired  salvation,  in  the 
Christian  sense  of  the  word,  the  Apostle  assumed  that  they  had 
a  knowledge  of  the  evils  which  awaited  unpardoned  sinners  in 
the  world  to  come.  The  evidence,  however,  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment affords  of  the  fact  that  the  Hebrews  believed  in  a  future 
state,  is  not  found  exclusively  in  direct  assertions  of  that  fact, 
but  in  the  whole  nature  of  the  plan  of  salvation  therein  unfolded. 
The  New  Testament  takes  for  granted  that  all  men,  since  the 
apostasy  of  Adam,  are  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation  ;  that 
from  that  state  no  man  can  be  delivered  except  through  the  Mes- 
siah, the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  only  Saviour  of  men.  It 
is,  therefore,  taught  that  the  knowledge  of  this  Redeemer  was 
communicated  to  our  race  from  the  beginning,  and  in  express 
terms  in  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  ;  that  the  condition  of 
salvation  was  then,  as  it  is  now,  faith  in  Christ ;  that  the  bless- 
ings secured  for  believers  were  enjoyed  before  the  advent  of  the 
Son  of  God  in  the  flesh,  as  well  as  since.  The  heaven  of  be- 
lievers is  called  the  bosom  of  Abraham.  All  this  of  course  as- 
sumes that  the  truths  made  known  in  the  New  Testament  are  in 
their  germs  revealed  in  the  Old  ;  just  as  all  the  doctrines  un- 
folded in  the  Epistles  are  contained  in  the  words  of  Christ  as 
recorded  in  the  Gospels. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  specially  devoted  to  the  object 
of  unfolding  the  relation  between  the  Old  Dispensation  and  the 
New.  The  former  was  the  shadow,  or  image,  of  the  latter. 
What  in  the  New  is  taught  in  words,  in  the  Old,  was  taught 
through  types.  That  men  are  sinners,  and  as  such  under  con- 
demnation ;  that  sin  can  only  be  cleansed  by  blood,  or  that  the 
expiation  of  guilt  by  a  vicarious  sacrifice  is  necessary  in  order  to 
forgiveness  ;  that  men  therefore  are  saved  by  a  priest  appointed 
to  draw  near  to  God  in  their  behalf  and  to  offer  gifts  and  sacri- 
fices for  sin ;  and  that  the  effect  of  this  priestly  intervention  is 
eternal  salvation,  are  said  to  be  the  truths  which  underlie  tlie 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  they  constitute  the  life  of  the 
religion  of  the  New.     Faith  was  to  the  saints  of  old  as  it  is  to  us, 


§1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  723 

"  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not 
seen."  They  walked  by  faith,  and  not  by  sight.  They  hved  with 
their  eyes  fixed  on  the  unseen  and  eternaL  It  was  the  future  that 
filled  their  vision  and  elevated  them  above  the  present.  They 
"  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen 
them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced  them, 
and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth. 
For  they  that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a 
country.  And  truly,  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country 
from  whence  they  came  out,  they  might  hav6  had  opportunity  to 
have  returned  ;  but  now  they  desire  a  better  country,  that  is,  an 
heavenly  ;  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God : 
for  He  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  (Heb.  xi.  13-16.)  Moses 
by  faith  chose  rather  "  to  suffer  affliction  with  the  people  of  God, 
than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season."  It  was  through 
faith,  the  belief  and  hope  of  a  better  life  hereafter,  that  the  saints 
of  old  "  subdued  kmgdoms,  -wrought  righteousness,  obtained 
promises,  stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of 
fire,  escaped  the  edge  of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness  were  made 
strong,  waxed  valiant  in  fight,  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the 
aliens.  Women  received  their  dead  raised  to  life  again :  and 
others  were  tortured,  not  accepting  deliverance  ;  that  they  might 
obtain  a  better  resurrection  :  and  others  had  trial  of  cruel  mock- 
ings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover  of  bonds  and  imprisonment : 
they  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  were  tempted,  were 
slain  with  the  sword  :  they  wandered  about  in  sheep-skins  and 
goat-skins ;  being  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented  (of  whom  the 
world  was  not  worthy)  ;  they  wandered  in  deserts,  and  in  moun- 
tains, and  in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth."  Nothing  more  than 
this  can  be  said  of  Christian  confessors  and  martyrs.  The  faith 
of  the  Old  Testament  saints  in  the  unseen  and  eternal  was,  there- 
fore, as  strong  as  that  of  any  set  of  men  since  the  creation.  It 
has  been  said  that  the  opinion  of  the  New  Testament  writers  is 
of  no  weight  in  a  matter  of  criticism,  and,  therefore,  it  is  of  no 
consequence  what  they  thought  about  the  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament.  This  is  true,  if  those  writers  were  ordinary  men ; 
but  if  they  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  then 
what  they  said,  God  said.  We  have,  therefore,  the  sure  word  of 
inspiration  that  the  people  of  God  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  have  believed  in  a  state  of  conscious  existence  beyond  the 
grave.  That  such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is  not 
disputed,  and  therefore  need  not  be  argued. 


724  PART  IV.  Ch.  L  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

The  Intermediate  State. 

As  all  Christians  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  a 
future  judgment,  they  all  believe  in  an  intermediate  state.  That 
is,  they  believe  that  there  is  a  state  of  existence  which  intervenes 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  ;  and  that  the  condition  of  the 
departed  during  that  interval  is,  in  some  respects,  different  from 
that  which  it  is  to  be  subsequent  to  that  event.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, as  to  the  fact  of  an  intermediate  state,  but  as  to  its  nature, 
that  diversity  of  opinion  exists  among  Christians. 

The  common  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  that  "  the 
souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death,  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory  ;  and  their  bodies,  being  still 
united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection." 
According  to  this  view  the  intermediate  state,  so  far  as  believers 
are  concerned,  is  one  of  perfect  freedom  from  sin  and  suffering, 
and  of  great  exaltation  and  blessedness.  This  is  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  the  belief  that  after  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  state  of  the  soul  will  be  still 
more  exalted  and  blessed. 

In  support  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  thus  stated,  it  may  be 
remarked, 

1.  That  it  is  simply  a  question  of  fact.  What  do  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  as  to  the  state  of  the  soul  of  a  believer  immediately 
after  death  ?  It  is  not  legitimate  to  decide  this  question  on 
psychological  grounds ;  to  argue  that  such  is  the  nature  of  the 
soul  that  it  cannot  retain  its  individuality,  or  personality,  when 
separated  from  the  body  ;  or,  that  it  is  a  mere  function  of  the 
brain  ;  or,  that  it  cannot  act  or  be  acted  upon  —  can  neither 
perceive  nor  be  perceived  except  through  and  by  means  of  the 
senses ;  or,  that  as  vegetable  and  animal  life  are  only  manifest  and 
active  in  connection  with  some  form  of  matter,  in  other  words, 
as  there  must  be  a  physical  basis  of  life,  so  the  soul  necessarily 
requires  a  material  basis  for  its  manifestation  and  activit}'.  All 
these  speculations,  or  theories,  are,  for  the  Christian,  of  no  account, 
if  the  Bible  teaches  the  fact  of  the  continued,  personal,  individual 
existence  of  the  soul  after  the  death  and  dissolution  of  the  body. 
The  Bible  does  not  formally  teach  anthropology  in  either  of  the 
branches  of  physiology  or  psychology,  as  a  department  of  human 
science,  but  it  assumes  a  great  deal  that  falls  under  these  several 
heads.  It  assumes  that  soul  and  body  in  man  are  two  distinct 
substances  united  in  a  vital  union  so  as  to  constitute  the  man,  in 


§1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  725 

the  present  state  of  existence,  one  individual  person.  It  assumes 
that  the  seat  of  this  personality  is  the  soul.  The  soul  is  the  self, 
the  Ego,  of  which  the  body  is  the  organ.  It  assumes  that  the 
soul  continues  its  conscious  existence,  and  its  power  of  acting  and 
of  being  dieted  upon  after  its  separation  from  the  body.  This  wo 
have  seen  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  Bible.  The  dead,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures,  do  not  cease  to  be ;  they  do  not  cease 
to  be  conscious  and  active. 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  psychology  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  is  that  of  the  vast  majority  of  men,  learned  or  unlearned, 
inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  the  souls  of  believers  do,  at 
death,  immediately  pass  into  glory. 

2.  According  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
the  probation  of  man  ends  at  death.  As  the  tree  falls,  so  it  lies. 
He  that  is  unjust  let  him  be  unjust  still,  and  he  that  is  righteous 
let  him  be  righteous  still.  When  the  bridegroom  comes,  they 
that  are  ready  enter  in,  and  the  door  is  shut.  According  to  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  there  is  no  passing  after 
death  from  one  state  to  another  ;  there  is  a  great  gulf  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  from  that  time  for  evermore.  It  is  ap- 
pointed unto  all  men  once  to  die,  and  after  that  the  judgment. 
The  destiny  of  the  soul  is  decided  at  death. 

3.  There  is  no  satisfaction  to  be  rendered  in  the  future  life  for 
the  sins  done  in  the  body.  The  Romish  doctrine  of  satisfactions 
renders  necessary  the  assumption  of  a  purgatorial  state  after  death 
for  those  who  have  not  in  this  life  made  full  expiation  for  their 
sins.  Biit  if  the  one  offering  of  Christ  forever  perfects  them  that 
believe ;  if  his  sacrifice  be  a  perfect  satisfaction  for  our  sins,  then 
there  is  no  reason  why  believers  should  be  kept  out  of  blessedness 
until  they  have  expiated  their  sins  by  their  own  sufferings. 

4.  There  is  nothing  contrary  to  Scripture,  or  to  analogy,  in  the 
assumption  of  a  sudden  and  immediate  change  from  imperfect  to 
perfect  holiness.  The  Protestant  doctrine  is  that  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers are  at  death  made  perfect  in  holiness.  But  it  is  asked, 
what  sanctifying  power  is  there  in  death  ?  Progress  in  moral  ex- 
cellence is  gradual  ;  as  no  one  becomes  thoroughly  evil  by  one 
act,  or  in  a  moment,  so,  it  is  said,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  a  sudden  change  from  imperfect  to  perfect  moral  excellence 
takes  place  at  the  moment  of  death.  This  objection  supposes 
that  the  salvation  of  men  is  a  natural  process  ;  if  it  be  a  super- 
natural work,  the  objection  has  no  force.  Curing  a  man  of  leprosy 
was  a  slow  process  ;  but  when  Christ  said  to  the  leper  "  I  will ; 


726  PART  IV.  Ch.  I  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

be  thou  clean,"  he  was  healed  in  a  moment.  The  change  which 
takes  place  in  a  believer  at  death,  can  hardly  be  much  greater 
than  that  instantaneously  produced  in  Paul  on  his  journey  to  Da- 
mascus. Paul,  in  Galatians  i.  16,  attributes  that  change  to  the 
revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  to  him.  If  the  momentary  vision  of 
the  divine  glory  of  Christ  produced  such  an  effect  upon  the 
Apostle,  is  it  strange  that  the  Scriptures  should  teach  that  the 
souls  of  believers,  when  separated  from  the  world  and  the  flesh, 
and  redeemed  from  the  power  of  the  devil,  and  bathed  in  the  full 
brightness  of  the  glory  of  the  blessed  Redeemer,  should  in  a  mo- 
ment be  purified  from  all  sin  ? 

If,  therefore,  there  be  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  soul  incon- 
sistent with  its  separate  existence  ;  if  the  body  be  not  a  necessary 
condition  of  its  consciousness  or  activity  ;  if  its  probation  termi- 
nates at  death  ;  if  the  perfection  of  Christ's  work  precludes  all 
necessity  of  future  satisfaction  for  sin ;  and  if  the  immediate 
change  from  imperfect  to  perfect  holiness  be  consistent  Avith  the 
analogy  of  faith,  then  there  is  no  a  priori  objection  to  the  doc- 
trine that  the  souls  of  believers  at  death  do  immediately  pass  into 
glory. 

5.  That  such  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  may  be  argued  from 
the  general  drift  of  the  sacred  volume,  so  far  as  this  subject  is 
concerned.  The  Bible  constantly  speaks  of  the  present  life  as  a 
state  of  conflict,  of  labour,  and  of  suffering  ;  and  of  death  as  the 
entrance  into  rest.  There  remains  a  rest  for  the  people  of  God. 
That  rest  follows  the  state  of  labour  and  trial.  Believers  then 
-cease  from  their  works.  The  rest  on  which  they  enter  is  not 
merely  a  rest  from  conflict  and  sin,  but  a  rest  which  arises  from 
the  attainment  of  the  end  of  their  being,  from  their  restoration  to 
their  proper  relation  to  God,  and  all  their  capacities  being  satisfied 
and  filled. 

6.  Besides  these  general  considerations  the  doctrine  in  question 
is  taught  in  many  passages  of  Scripture  with  more  or  less  distinct- 
ness. Thus,  in  Revelation  xiv.  13,  the  Apostle  says,  "  I  heard  a 
voice  from  heaven  saying  unto  me.  Write,  Blessed  are  the  dead 
which  die  in  the  I>ord  from  henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit, 
that  they  may  rest  from  their  labours  ;  and  their  works  do  follow 
them."  The  simple  meaning  of  this  passage  is  that  those  who 
die  in  the  Lord  are,  from  that  moment  onward,  in  a  state  of  bless- 
ednesss  ;  because  they  cease  from  their  labours,  and  enter  on  the 
reward  of  the  righteous.  Death  is  for  them  emancipation  from 
evil,  and  the  introduction  into  a  state  of  happiness. 


§  1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  727 

Our  Lord  constantly  teaches  concerning  those  who  believe  in 
Him,  (1.)  That  they  are  not  condemned.  They  are  no  longer 
under  the  sentence  of  the  law.  (2.)  That  they  have  eternal  life. 
That  the  effect  of  the  union  between  Himself  and  them,  consum- 
mated by  faith,  is  that  they  partake  of  his  life  in  a  sense  analo- 
gous to  that  in  which  the  branch  partakes  of  the  life  of  the  vine. 
As  He  lives  always,  those  who  partake  of  his  life  can  never  perish. 
And  as  He  lives  unto  God,  so  the  life  of  his  people  is  a  holy  and 
divine  life.  That  life,  from  its  nature,  is  an  unfailing  source  of 
blessedness.  It  purifies,  exalts,  and  glorifies.  It  is  impossible 
that  the  souls  in  which  Christ  thus  lives  should  remain  in  a  state 
of  misery  and  degradation,  or  in  that  dreamy  state  of  existence  in 
"  the  under-world  "  which  so  many  of  the  fathers  imagined  to  be 
the  abode  of  the  departed  spirits  of  believers,  awaiting  the  second 
coming  of  Christ.  (3.)  Our  Lord  promised  that  He  would  raise 
his  people  from  the  dead  on  the  last  day.  It  would  seem,  there- 
fore, to  be  involved  in  the  nature  of  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  union  between  Him  and  his  people,  that  when  absent  from 
the  body  they  are  present  with  the  Lord.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
with  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  them,  which  is  the  Spirit  of 
holiness  and  of  glory,  they  should  sink  at  death  into  a  lower  state 
of  existence  than  that  which  they  enjoyed  in  this  world.  We  ac- 
cordingly find  that  in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
Christ  says  :  "  The  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into 
Abraham's  bosom."  (Luke  xvi.  22.)  The  implication  is  unde- 
niable that  in  his  case  the  transition  was  immediate  from  earth 
to  heaven.  Still  more  explicit  is  the  declaration  of  our  Lord  to 
the  penitent  thief,  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." 
(Luke  xxiii.  43.)  The  word  paradise  occurs  in  two  other  places 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  2  Corinthians  xii.  4,  Paul  says  he 
was  caught  up  into  paradise,  which  he  explains  by  saying  that  he 
was  caught  up  into  the  third  heaven.  And  in  Revelation  ii.  7, 
Christ  says  :  "  He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit 
saith  unto  the  churches  :  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  give  to 
eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  paradise  of 
God."  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  that  paradise  is  heaven, 
and  consequently  when  Christ  promised  the  dying  thief  that  he 
should  that  day  be  in  paradise,  he  promised  that  he  should  be  in 
heaven.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  impossible  that  any  who  do 
not  rest  their  faith  on  tlie  fathers  rather  than  on  the  Bible,  should 
deny  that  the  souls  of  behevers  do  at  death  immediately  pass  into 
heaven.     The  fathers  made  a  distinction  between  paradise  and 


k 


728   PART  IV.  Ch.  L  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

heaven  which  is  not  found  in  the  Scriptures.  Some  of  them  re- 
garded the  former  as  one  division  of  Hades,  corresponding  to  the 
Elysium  of  the  pagans  ;  others  located  it  somewhere  on  the  earth  ; 
while  others  regarded  it  as  a  locality  high  up  above  tlie  earth,  but 
below  the  dwelling-place  of  God.  These  are  mere  fancies.  The 
word  heaven  is  indeed  a  term  of  wide  application  in  the  Bible  as 
it  is  in  common  life.  We  speak  of  the  fowls  of  heaven  ;  of  the 
stars  of  heaven  ;  of  our  Father  who  is  in  heaven ;  and  of  believers 
beino-  the  citizens  of  heaven.  In  each  of  these  cases  the  word  has 
a  different  sense.  Whether  paradise  and  heaven  are  the  same  is 
a  mere  dispute  about  words.  If  the  word  heaven  be  taken  in  one 
of  its  legitimate  senses,  they  are  the  same ;  if  it  be  taken  in  an- 
other of  its  senses,  they  are  not  the  same.  It  would  not  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  Scriptural  usage  to  say  that  believers  are  now  in 
paradise  ;  but  the  Apostle  does  say  they  are  now  ei'  roh  eVoupait'ois 
(Eph.  ii.  6),  ^.  e.,  in  heaven.  Paradise,  as  the  word  is  used  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  is  the  place  where  Christ  now  is,  and 
where  He  manifests  his  presence  and  glory.  Whether  it  is  the 
place  where  He  will  finally  establish  his  kingdom ;  and  whether 
all  the  redeemed,  clothed  in  their  resurrection  bodies,  shall  there 
be  gathered  together,  is  a  matter  of  which  we  have  no  knowledge, 
and  in  which  we  need  take  no  interest.  All  we  need  know  is  that 
it  is  where  Christ  is  ;  that  it  is  a  place  and  state  in  which  there  is 
neither  sin  nor  sorrow,  and  where  the  saints  are  as  exalted  and 
hap})y  as,  in  the  existing  circumstances  of  their  being,  it  is  pos- 
sible for  them  to  be.  Whether  any,  in  obedience  to  patristic 
usage,  choose  to  call  this  paradise  a  department  of  Hades,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  no  concern.  All  that  the  dying  believer  need  know  is  that 
he  goes  to  be  with  Christ.     That  to  him  is  heaven. 

In  2  Corinthians  v.  2,  the  Apostle  says :  "  We  knoAV,  that  if 
our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a 
building  of  God,  an  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the 
heavens."  There  are  three  ways  in  which  these  words,  in  con- 
nection with  those  which  follow,  are  interpreted.  (1.)  Accord- 
ing to  one  view,  the  house  not  made  with  hands  into  Avhich  the 
believer  is  received  at  death,  is  heaven.  (2.)  According  to  an- 
other view  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  is,  that  when  our  present 
body  is  dissolved  the  soul  will  not  be  found  naked,  bnt  Avill  be 
immediately  clothed  with  another  and  more  spiritual  body  suited 
to  the  altered  state  of  its  existence.  (3.)  That  the  new  house 
or  body  intended  is  the  resurrection  body.  The  second  of  these 
interpretations  is  founded  on  a  gratuitous  assumption.    It  assumes 


§  1.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  T29 

that  the  soul  is  furnished  with  a  body  of  which  the  Scriptuies 
make  no  mention,  and  of  the  existence  of  which  we  have  no  evi- 
dence. The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  any  human  body  save  that 
which  we  now  have,  and  that  which  we  are  to  have  at  the  resur- 
rection ;  the  one  natural,  the  other  spiritual.  The  third  interpre- 
tation assumes  that  the  Apostles  erred  not  only  in  their  own  con- 
victions, but  in  their  teaching.  It  assumes  that  what  they  taught 
could  be  true  only  on  the  condition  that  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  was  to  occur  while  the  men  of  that  generation  were  alive. 
The  point,  however,  in  which  all  these  views  of  this  passage 
agree,  is  the  only  one  which  concerns  the  question  under  consid- 
eration. They  all  suppose  that  the  soul  is  received  into  a  state  of 
blessedness  immediately  after  death.  This  the  Apostle  clearly 
teaches.  As  soon  as  our  earthly  house  is  destroyed,  the  soul,  in- 
stead of  being  left  houseless  and  homeless,  is  received  in  that 
house  which  is  eternal  in  the  heavens.  "  We  are  always  confi- 
dent," he  says,  "knowing  that,  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the 
body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord :  we  are  confident,  I  say,  and 
willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with 
the  Lord." 

In  Philippians  i.  23,  he  expresses  the  same  confidence :  "  For," 
he  says,  "  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  depart, 
and  to  be  with  Christ ;  wliich  is  far  better  :  nevertheless,  to 
abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  you."  Two  things  are  here 
perfectly  plain ;  first,  that  Paul  regards  the  state  of  the  soul  after 
death  as  more  exalted  than  its  condition  while  in  the  flesh.  This 
he  distinctly  asserts.  And,  secondly,  that  this  change  for  the 
better  takes  place  immediately  after  death.  He  was  confident 
that  as  soon  as  he  departed  he  would  be  with  Christ.  Both 
these  points  are  conceded,  even  by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine 
which  they  evidently  involve.  Some  say  that  Paul,  finding  that 
Christ  did  not  come  as  soon  as  he  expected,  changed  his  opinion, 
and  held  that  the  sovils  of  believers  were  admitted  at  death  into 
heaven,  instead  of  awaiting  the  second  advent  in  the  under- 
world. The  fathers  said  that  while  the  great  body  of  believers 
at  death  went  into  Hades,  some  few,  especially  the  martyrs,  were 
admitted  at  once  into  heaven.  Mr.  Alger  conjectures  that  "  we 
may  assume  ....  that  Paul  believed  there  would  be  vouchsafed 
to  the  faithful  Christian  during  his  transient  abode  in  the  under- 
world a  more  intimate  and  blessed  spiritual  fellowship  with  his 
Master  than  he  could  experience  while  in  the  flesh." '    All  this  is 

1  Alger,  ut  supra,  p.  290. 


7;J0   PART  IV.  Cii.  I  — STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

floundering.  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  inspired  Apostle  confi- 
dently anticipated  for  himself,  and  evidently  for  his  fellow-believ- 
ers, immediate  admission  at  death  to  the  presence  of  Christ.  The 
ancients  regarded  the  "  under-world  "  or  Hades,  as  "  a  gloomy 
prison,"  as  ]\Ir.  Alger  himself  calls  it.  That  Paul  should  have 
desired  death  in  order  that  he  should  be  thrust  into  a  dungeon, 
no  man  can  believe. 

The  Scriptures  represent  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  as  being 
in  heaven.  The  good,  at  death,  are  carried  by  angels  to  Abra- 
ham's bosom.  Moses  and  EUjah  appeared  in  glory  on  the  mount 
of  transfiguration,  conversing  with  Christ.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  it  is  said,  "  Ye  are  come  unto  Mount  Sion,  and  unto  the 
city  of  the  living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  an  innu- 
merable company  of  angels,  to  the  general  assembly  and  church 
of  the  first  born,  which  are  written  in  heaven,  and  to  God  the 
Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,  and  to 
Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of 
sprinkling,  that  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel." 
Nothing  can  be  more  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  the 
Gospel,  than  the  idea  that  the  fire  of  divine  life  as  it  glows  in  the 
hearts  of  God's  elect,  is,  at  death,  to  be  quenched  in  the  damp 
darkness  of  an  underground  prison,  until  the  time  of  the  resur- 
rection. 

§  2.   The  Sleep  of  the  Soul. 

The  doctrine  that  the  soul  exists,  during  the  interval  between 
death  and  the  resurrection,  in  a  state  of  unconscious  repose, 
properly  supposes  the  soul  to  be  a  distinct  substance  from  the 
body.  It  is  therefore  to  be  distinguished  from  the  materialistic 
theory,  which  assumes  that  as  matter  in  certain  states  and  combi- 
nations exhibits  the  phenomena  of  magnetism  or  light,  so  in  other 
combinations  it  exhibits  the  phenomena  of  life,  and  in  others  the 
phenomena  of  mind,  and  hence  that  vital  and  mental  activity  are 
as  much  the  result  or  effect  of  the  molecular  arrangements  of 
matter,  as  any  physical  operations  in  the  external  world.  As  in 
this  view  it  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of  the  sleep  or  quietude  of 
magnetism  or  light  when  the  conditions  of,  their  existence  are 
absent,  so  it  would  be  equally  absurd,  on  this  theory,  to  speak  of 
the  sleep  of  the  soul  after  the  dissolution  of  the  body. 

The  doctrine  of  the  sleep  of  the  soul,  moreover,  is  not  identi- 
cal with  that  which  assumes  that,  although  matter  is  in  none  of 
its  combinations  the  cause  of  mental  activity,  yet  that  it  is  the 
necessary  condition  (so  far  as  man  is  concerned)  of  its  manifesta- 


g2.]  THE    SLEEP   OF   THE    SOUL.  731 

tion.  The  best  of  scientific  men  teach  with  regard  to  life,  or 
vital  force,  that  it  is  not  the  result  of  material  combinations,  but 
that  such  combination  is  necessary  to  its  manifestation.  "  We 
recognize  that  these  [vital]  phenomena,"  says  Professor  Nichol- 
son, "  are  never  manifested  except  by  certain  forms  of  matter,  or, 
it  may  be,  by  but  a  single  form  of  matter.  We  conclude,  there- 
fore, that  there  must  be  an  intimate  connection  between  vital 
phenomena  and  the  '  matter  of  life ; '  but  we  can  go  no  further 
than  this,  and  the  premises  do  not  in  any  way  Avarrant  the  asser- 
tion that  life  is  tlie  result  of  living  matter,  or  one  of  its  proper- 
ties." "  The  more  philosophical  view  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
connection  between  life  and  its  material  basis,  is  the  one  which 
regards  vitality  as  something  superadded  and  foreign  to  the  mat- 
ter by  which  vital  phenomena  are  manifested.  Protoplasm  is  es- 
sential as  the  physical  medium  through  which  vital  action  may 
be  manifested ;  just  as  a  conductor  is  essential  to  the  manifesta- 
tion of  electric  phenomena,  or  just  as  a  paint-brush  and  colours 
are  essential  to  the  artist.  Because  metal  conducts  the  electric 
current,  and  renders  it  perceptible  to  our  senses,  no  one  thinks  of 
therefore  asserting  that  electricity  is  one  of  the  inherent  proper- 
ties of  a  metal,  any  more  than  one  would  feel  inclined  to  assert 
that  the  power  of  painting  was  inherent  in  the  camel's  hair  or  in 
the  dead  pigments.  Behind  the  material  substratum,  in  all  cases, 
is  the  active  and  living  force ;  and  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  the  force  ceases  to  exist  when  its  physical  basis  is  removed, 
though  it  is  no  longer  perceptible  to  our  senses.  It  is,  on  the 
contrar}^,  quite  conceivable  theoretically  that  the  vital  forces  of 
an  organism  should  suffer  no  change  by  the  destruction  of .  the 
physical  basis,  just  as  electricity  woidd  continue  to  subsist  in  a 
world  composed  universally  of  non-conductors.  In  neither  case 
could  the  force  manifest  its  presence,  or  be  brought  into  any 
perceptible  relation  with  the  outer  world ;  but  in  neither  case 
should  we  have  the  smallest  ground  for  assuming  that  the  power 
was  necessarily  non-extant."  ^ 

This  view  when  transferred  to  the  soul,  or  mental  phenomena, 
may  be  applied  in  three  different  forms  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
state  of  man  after  death.  First,  God  may  be  regarded  as  the 
universal  mind-force  which  manifests  itself  through  the  human 
brain  as  electricity  does  through  a  conductor.     When  the  brain  is 


1  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Biolof/y,  by  H.  Alleyne  Nicholson,  M.  D.,  D.  Sc,  Ph.  D., 
F.  R.  S.  E.,  F.  G.  S.,  etc.,  Professor  of  Natural  History  and  Botany  in  University  College, 
Toronto,  etc.,  etc.     Edinburgh  and  London,  1872,  pp.  8  and  11. 


k 


732   PART  IV.  Ch.  T.  -  STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH.   " 

disintegrated,  the  mind-force  remain.s,  but  not  the  individual  man. 
Secondly,  we  may  assume  the  realistic  doctrine  of  generic  human- 
ity, manifesting  itself  in  connection  with  proper  corporeal  organ- 
izations. Here  again,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  when  any 
individual  human  body  is  dissolved,  the  generic  human  life  re- 
mains, but  not  the  man.  Tliis  is  nearly  the  doctrine  of  Olshau- 
sen,  before  referred  to.  He  held  that  the  individuality  of  man 
depends  on  the  body  ;  so  that  without  a  body  there  can  be  no 
soul ;  that  the  only  existence  of  the  soul  of  man  possible  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  must  be  the  scattered  dust  of  its  human 
frame.  Thirdly,  we  may  take  the  doctrine  of  Swedenborg,  who 
taught  that  man  has  two  bodies,  an  exterior  and  interior,  a  mate- 
rial and  spiritual,  and  that  it  is  the  former  only  that  dies  ;  the  lat- 
ter remains  as  the  organ  of  the  soul.  Or,  as  others  believe,  the 
new,  or  spiritual,  or  resurrection  body  is  provided  at  the  moment 
of  death,  so  that  the  soul  passes  from  its  earthly  to  its  heavenly 
tabernacle  in  a  moment.  In  none  of  these  forms,  however,  is 
this  theory  of  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  soul  for  its  power 
of  self-manifestation  properly  applicable  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
sleep  of  the  soul  after  death.  It  is  nevertheless  probable  that 
those  who  advocated  this  doctrine,  in  different  periods  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church,  had  some  such  theory  underlying  their 
views. 

Eusebius  ^  mentions  a  small  sect  of  Christians  in  Arabia  who 
held  that  the  soul  remained  unconscious  from  death  to  the  res- 
urrection. At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  there  was  such  a 
revival  of  that  doctrine  that  Calvin  deemed  it  expedient  to  write 
an  essay  devoted  to  its  refutation.  Socinus  also  taught  that  the 
soul  after  death  perceived  and  received  nothing  out  of  itself,  al- 
though it  remained  seLf-conscious  and  self-contemplative.  Arch- 
bishop Whately  2  says  that,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  are  concerned, 
it  is  an  open  question  whether  the  soul  remains  in  a  conscious 
state  after  death  or  not.  In  the  third  lecture  he  gives  reasons 
which  favour  the  view  of  continued  consciousness  ;  and  in  the 
fourth,  those  which  seem  to  teach  the  opposite  doctrine.  To  the 
understanding,  he  says,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  two 
views ;  although  to  the  imagination,  the  difference  is  great.  In 
the  consciousness  of  the  soul  of  the  believer,  in  either  case,  en- 
trance into  heaven  would  instantaneously  succeed  death.     An  in- 

1  Ecclesiastica  Ilistoria,  vi.  xxxvii.;  edit.  Cambridge,  1720,  p.  299. 

2  A  View  of  the  Scri/iture  Revelations  concerning  a  Future  State,  by  Richard  Whately, 
U.  D..  Archbishop  of  Dublin.     Philadelphia,  18.5G. 


§  3.]  PATRISTIC   DOCTRINE.  733 

terval  of  which  the  soul  was  unconscious,  would,  for  it,  have  no 
existence.  The  archbishop  for  himself  thinks  that  tlie  arguments 
on  the  one  side  are  as  strong  as  those  on  the  other.  The  two 
considerations  which  seem  to  him  to  favour  the  doctrine  of  the 
sleep  of  the  soul  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  are,  first  the 
fact  that  death  is  so  often  called  a  sleep.  The  dead  are  those  who 
are  asleep.  (1  Thess.  xiv.  4.)  This  expression  cannot  properly 
be  understood  of  the  body.  A  dead  body  can  no  more  be  said  to 
sleep  than  a  stone.  The  fair  intimation,  therefore,  is,  as  the 
Archbishop  thinks,  that  the  soul  sleeps  when  the  body  dies.  The 
second  consideration  is  that  the  New  Testament  clearly  teaches 
that  there  is  a  solemn  final  judgment  at  the  last  day,  when  the 
destiny  of  each  soul  will  be  decided  for  eternity.  But  this  ap- 
pears inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  the  fate  of  the  soul  is 
decided  immediately  after  it  leaves  the  body.  He  admits  that, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  probation  ends  with  this  life,  and 
therefore  if  the  righteous  at  death  pass  into  a  state  of  happiness 
and  the  wicked  into  a  state  of  misery,  they  are  thereby  judged ; 
and  there  is  no  apparent  necessity  for  a  future  judgment.  It  is 
obvious  that  these  arguments  have  little  force  against  the  clear 
teachings  of  the  Bible,  and  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal, 
and  indeed  of  all  mankind.  As  to  the  first  of  the  above  men- 
tioned arguments,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  as  a  dead  body  and 
a  body  asleep  are  so  much  alike  in  appearance,  it  is  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world  to  speak  of  death  as  an  unending 
sleep.  This  is  done  continually  by  those  who  are  firm  believers 
in  the  continued  conscious  activity  of  the  soul  after  death.  The 
other  argument  has,  if  possible,  still  less  weight.  Although  the 
fate  of  every  man  should  be  decided  for  himself  and  to  his 
knowledge  at  the  moment  of  death,  there  may  be  important  and 
numerous  reasons  why  there  should  be  a  public,  solemn  adjudica- 
tion at  the  last  day,  when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  made 
known,  and  the  justice  of  God  revealed  in  the  presence  of  men 
and  angels. 

§  3.  Patristic  Doctrine  of  the  Intermediate  State. 

Although  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  state  of  the  dead 
was,  as  has  been  shown,  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  was 
more  or  less  perverted  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  The  prevalent 
idea  was  that  all  souls  after  death  descended  into  Sheol,  and  there 
remained  in  expectation  of  the  coming  of  the  INIessiah.  When 
He  came  it  was  expected  that  the  Jews,  or  at  least,  the  faithful, 


I 


734   PART  IV.  Ch.  I.  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

would  be  raised  from  the  dead,  and  made  partakers  of  all  tlie 
glories  and  blessedness  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  The  views  pre- 
sented in  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins  of  the  condition  of  the 
souls  in  Sheol  are  not  only  diverse  but  inconsistent.  The  com- 
mon representation  was  that  Sheol  itself  was  a  gloomy,  subter- 
raneous abode,  whose  inhabitants  were  shades,  weak  and  power- 
less, existing  in  a  dreamy  state  ;  the  best  of  them  not  in  a  state 
of  suffering,  and.  yet  with  no  other  enjoyment  than  the  anticipa- 
tion of  deliverance  when  the  Messiah  should  come.  At  other 
times,  however,  more  life  was  attributed  to  the  souls  of  the  de- 
parted ;  and  Sheol  was  represented  as  divided  into  two  depart- 
ments. Paradise  and  Gehenna.  In  the  former  were,  according  to 
some,  all  Jews,  according  to  others  only  those  who  had  faithfully 
observed  the  law  ;  and  in  the  other,  the  Gentiles.  The  common 
opinion  was  that  all  the  Jews  would  be  raised  from  the  dead, 
when  the  Messiah  came,  and  all  the  Gentiles  left  forever  in  the 
abode  of  darkness.  Paradise,  according  to  this  view,  was  a  place 
of  positive  enjoyment,  and  Gehenna  a  place  of  positive  suffer- 
ing. It  is  evident  that  there  is  no  great  difference  between  this 
Jewish  doctrine  in  its  essential  features,  and  the  true  doctrine  as 
presented  by  our  Lord  in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Laz- 
arus. Both  are  represented  as  going  into  Sheol  or  Hades.  The 
one  was  comforted,  the  other  tormented.  There  was  an  in- 
separable barrier  between  the  two.  So  far  both  doctrines  agree. 
When  the  Rabbi  Jochanan  was  dying,  he  said,  "  Two  paths  open 
before  me,  the  one  leading  to  bliss,  the  other  to  torments ;  and  I 
know  not  which  of  them  will  be  my  doom."  ^  "  Paradise  is  sep- 
arated from  hell  by  a  distance  no  greater  than  the  width  of  a 
thread."  2 

According  to  many  modern  interpreters  the  New  Testament 
writers  adopted  this  Jewish  doctrine  not  only  in  substance  but  in 
its  details.  (1.)  They  are  represented  as  teaching  that  nil  the 
people  of  God  Avho  died  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  were  con- 
fined in  Sheol,  or  the  under-world.  Sheol  or  Hades,  as  stated 
above,  is  constantly  spoken  of  "  as  the  gloomy  realm  of  shades, 
wherein  are  gathered  and  detained  the  souls  of  all  the  dead  gen- 
erations." The  soul  at  death  is  said  to  be  dismissed  "  naked 
into  the  silent,  dark,  and  dreary  region  of  the  under-world." 
(2.)  That  when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross,  He  descended  "  ad 
inferos,"  into  Hades,  or  Hell,  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  the 

1  Talmud,  Tract.  Bavnclioth ;  quoted  by  Alger,  p.  167. 

2  Eiseumenger,  Entdeclctes  Judentlium,  Kiinigsberg,  1711;  ii.  cap.  v.  p.  315. 


§3.]  PATRISTIC   DOCTRINE.  735 

pious  dead  from  their  prison ;  and  that  they  were  the  redeemed 
captives  of  whom  the  Apostle  speaks  in  Ephesians  iv.  8-10,  as  led 
by  Christ  into  heaven.  (3.)  That  those  who  die  in  the  Lord 
since  his  advent,  instead  of  being  admitted  into  heaven,  pass  into 
the  same  place  and  the  same  state  into  which  the  patriarch  passed 
at  death  before  his  coming.  (4.)  And  as  the  Old  Testament 
saints  remained  in  Sheol  until  the  first  coming  of  the  Messiah,  so 
those  who  die  under  the  New  Testament,  are  to  remain  in  Hades, 
until  his  second  coming.  Then  they  are  not  only  to  be  delivered 
from  Sheol,  but  their  bodies  are  to  be  raised  from  the  dead,  and 
soul  and  body,  reunited  and  glorified,  are  to  be  admitted  into 
heaven. 

Such  is  the  scheme  of  doctrine  said  to  be  taught  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Our  Lord  is  regarded  as  giving  it  his  sanction  in  the  par- 
able concerning  Lazarus.  Paul  is  made  to  teach  it  when  he  speaks 
of  Christ  as  descending  to  "  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,"  which  is 
said  to  mean  "  the  parts  lower  than  the  earth,"  that  is,  the  un- 
der-world. His  object  in  thus  descending  was,  according  to  the 
theory,  to  deliver  the  souls  confined  in  the  gloomy  prison  of 
Sheol.  Christ's  triumph  over  principalities  and  powers  is  referred 
to  the  same  event,  his  descent  into  Hades.  Mr.  Alger,  repre- 
senting a  large  class  of  writers,  says  that  according  to  Paul's 
doctrine,  "  Christ  was  the  first  person  clothed  with  humanity  and 
experiencing  death,  admitted  into  heaven.  Of  all  the  hosts  who 
had  lived  and  died,  every  one  had  gone  down  into  the  dusky 
under-world.  They  were  all  held  in  durance  waiting  for  the 
Great  Deliverer."  ^  The  fate  of  those  who  die  since  the  advent 
is  no  better,  for  they,  as  Paul  is  made  to  teach,  are  "  all  to  remain 
in  the  under-world  "  until  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  "  when 
they  and  the  transformed  living  shall  ascend  together  with  the 
Lord."  2 

St.  Peter  is  made  to  teach  the  same  doctrine  in  still  more  ex- 
plicit terms.  In  his  discourse  delivered  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
he  argued  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  from  the  fact  that  God  raised 
Him  from  the  dead.  That  He  was  thus  raised  he  argued  from 
the  sixteenth  Psalm,  where  it  is  written,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave 
my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see 
corruption."  That  these  words  cannot  refer  to  Da'sdd,  Peter  ar- 
gued, because  he  did  see  corruption,  and  his  sepulchre  remained 
imtil  that  day.  The  words  of  the  Psalmist,  therefore,  must  be 
understood  of   Christ,  whose  soul  was  not  left  in  hell   (vSheol), 

1  Alger,  ut  sujyra,  p.  284.  2  m^,  p.  288. 


736  PART  IV.  Cii.  I.  — STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption.  As  for  David,  he  "  is  not  as- 
cended into  heaven."  (Acts  ii.  34.)  Something,  therefore,  liap- 
pened  to  Christ  that  did  not  happen  to  David  or  to  any  other 
man.  Christ  was  not  left  in  hell ;  David  and  all  other  men  were 
thus  left.  Christ  did  ascend  to  heaven ;  David  did  not ;  and  if 
David  did  not,  then  other  saints  of  his  time  did  not.  Thus  it  is 
that  Peter  is  made  to  teach  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  dead  do 
not  ascend  to  heaven,  but  descend  to  the  gloomy  abode  of  Slieol, 
Hades,  or  Hell,  all  these  terms  being  equivalent.  This  exposition 
of  the  Apostle's  teaching  is  plausible,  and  if  consistent  with  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  might  be  accepted.  But  as  it  contradicts  what 
the  Bible  clearly  teaches  in  many  other  places,  it  must  be  rejected. 
Peter's  object  was  to  prove  the  Messiahship  of  Christ  from  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  of  his  body.  The  essential  idea  of  "  rising 
from  the  dead  "  was  the  restoration  of  the  body  to  life.  The  soul 
does  not  die,  and  is  not  raised.  The  Apostle  proved  that  Christ's 
body  did  not  see  corruption,  but  was  restored  to  life ;  first,  be- 
cause it  was  a  historical  fact  of  which  he  and  his  brethren  were 
witnesses ;  and  secondly,  from  the  prediction  of  the  Psalmist  that 
the  Messiah  was  not  to  remain  in  the  grave.  That  the  sixteenth 
Psalm  does  not  refer  to  David,  he  argued,  because  David  died  and 
was  buried  ;  his  body  did  see  corruption  ;  his  sepulchre  remained 
among  them  ;  he,  his  body,  he,  as  a  man  composed  of  soul  and 
body,  had  not  ascended  to  heaven.  The  whole  argument  concerns 
the  body  ;  because  it  is  true  only  of  the  body,  that  it  dies,  is 
buried,  sees  corruption,  and  does  not  ascend  to  heaven.  The 
simple  meaning  of  Psalm  xvi.  10,  is  that  the  person  there  spoken 
of  was  not  to  remain  under  the  power  of  death.  He  was  to  rise 
from  the  dead  before  his  body  had  time  to  see  corruption.  This 
is  all  that  the  passage  teaches.  This  is  true  of  Christ  ;  it  was 
not  true  of  David  or  of  any  of  the  saints  who  died  before  the  ad- 
vent ;  and  it  is  not  true  of  those  who  have  died  since  the  advent. 
In  this  respect,  as  in  so  many  others,  Christ  stands  gloriously 
alone. 

The  difficult  passage  1  Peter  iii.  18,  19,  however  it  may  b.e  in- 
terpreted, proves  nothing  against  the  Protestant  doctrine  that  the 
souls  of  believers  do  at  death  innnediately  pass  into  glory.  What 
happens  to  ordinary  men  happened  to  Christ  when  He  died.  His 
cold  and  lifeless  body  Avas  laid  in  the  tomb.  His  human  soul 
passed  into  the  invisible  world.  This  is  all  that  the  creed,  com- 
monly called  the  Apostle's,  means,  when  it  says  Christ  was  buried, 
and  descended  into  Hell,  or  Hades,  the  unseen  world.     Tiiis  is 


§3.J  PATRISTIC   DOCTRINE.  737 

all  that  the  passage  in  question  clearly  teaches.  Men  may  doubt 
and  differ  as  to  what  Christ  did  during  the  three  days  of  his  so- 
journ in  the  invisible  world.  They  may  differ  as  to  who  the 
spirits  in  prison  were  to  whom  he  preached,  or,  rather,  made 
proclamation  (iKijpv^a)  ;  whether  they  were  the  antediluvians  ;  or, 
the  souls  of  the  people  of  God  detained  in  Sheol ;  or,  the  mass  of 
the  dead  of  all  antecedent  generations  and  of  all  nations,  which  is 
the  favorite  hypothesis  of  modern  interpreters.  They  may  differ 
also  as  to  what  the  proclamation  was  which  Christ  made  to  those 
imprisoned  spirits ;  whether  it  was  the  gospel ;  or  his  own  tri- 
umph ;  or  deliverance  from  Sheol ;  or  the  coming  judgment. 
However  these  subordinate  questions  may  be  decided,  all  that 
remains  certain  is  that  Christ,  after  his  death  upon  the  cross,  en- 
tered the  invisible  world,  and  there,  in  some  way,  made  procla- 
mation of  what  He  had  done  on  earth.  All  this  is  very  far  from 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  a  "  Limbus  Patrum,"  as  taught  by  the 
Jews,  the  Fathers,  or  the  Romanists. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  in  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  bring  down  its  teachings  to  the  level  of  Jewish  or  Pagan  ideas. 
Because  the  Jews  expected  the  Messiah  to  establish  an  earthly 
kingdom,  it  is  inferred  that  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  proclaimed 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  was  to  be  realized  in  this  life.  Be- 
cause they  expected  that  the  Messiah  was  to  deliver  the  souls  of 
their  fathers  from  Sheol,  it  is  assumed  that  this  was  the  work  ac- 
tually effected  by  Christ.  Because  the  Jews  regarded  imprison- 
ment in  the  under-world  as  the  special  penalty  of  sin,  it  is  inferred 
that  deliverance  from  that  imprisonment  was  the  redemption  our 
Lord  actually  effected.  This  is  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  by  the 
Talmud  and  Cabala,  and  not  Scripture  by  Scripture.  This  is 
historical  interpretation  "  en  outre."  It  is  true  that  Christ 
proclaimed  tliat  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand ;  but  his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  It  is  true  that  He  came  to  open 
the  prison  doors  and  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives  ;  but  the 
prison  was  not  Sheol,  and  the  captives  were  not  the  souls  of  de- 
parted patriarchs.  It  is  true  that  He  came  to  redeem  his  people ; 
but  the  redemption  which  He  effected  was  from  the  curse  of  God's 
violated  law,  and  not  deliverance  from  the  gloomy  land  of  Shades. 

We  all  know  that  the  great  evil  with  which  the  Apostles  had 

to  contend  in  the  early  Church,  and  the  great  source  of  corruption 

in  the  Churcli  in  after  ages,  was  a  Judaizing  spirit.     Most  of  the 

early  Christians  were  Jews,  and   most  of  the  converts   from  the 

Gentiles  were  proselytes  imbued  with   Jewish  doctrines.     These 
VOL.  III.  47 


738  PART  IV.  Ch.  I.— state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

doctrmes,  moreover,  were  congenial  with  what  the  Apostle  calls 
"the  carnal  mind."  It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  they 
were  transferred  to  the  Christian  Church,  and  proved  in  it  a  per- 
manently corrupting  leaven.  Modern  critics  are  going  back  to 
the  beginning,  and  doing  in  our  day  what  the  Judaizers  did  in  the 
age  of  the  Apostltfs.  They  are  eliminating  Christianity  from  the 
Gospel,  and  substituting  Judaism,  somewhat  spiritualized,  but  still 
essentially  Judaic. 

It  is  notorious  that  the  Jewish  doctrines  of  the  merit  of  works  ; 
of  the  necessity  and  saving  efficacy  of  external  rites ;  of  a  visible 
kingdom  of  Christ  of  sj^Iendour  and  worldly  grandeur  ;  of  an  exter- 
nal chm-ch  out  of  whose  pale  there  is  no  salvation  ;  of  the  priestly 
character  of  the  ministry  ;  and  of  a  church  hierarchy,  soon  began 
to  spread  among  Cliristians,  and  at  last  became  ascendant.  This 
being  the  case  it  would  be  strange  if  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  Sheol, 
or  of  an  intermediate  state,  had  not  been  adopted  by  many  of  the 
fathers,  together  with  the  other  elements  of  the  corrupt  Judaism 
of  the  apostolic  age.  We  accordingly  find  that  as  the  Jews,  con- 
trary to  the  teaching  of  their  own  Scripture,  held  that  the  souls 
of  those  who  died  before  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  descended 
into  Sheol,  and  there  awaited  the  advent  of  the  Redeemer,  so  the 
Christians  began  to  believe,  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  their 
Scriptures,  tliat  the  souls  of  believers  at  death,  instead  of  passing 
into  glory,  are  shut  up  in  Hades,  awaiting  the  second  coming  of 
Christ.  It  is  true  there  were  varying  and  inconsistent  notions 
entertained  of  the  nature  of  this  intermediate  state  ;  and  the  same 
is  true  also  with  regard  to  the  views  on  this  subject  which  long 
prevailed  in  the  Church.  There  are  tAvo  facts  which  stand  out  so 
plainly  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  that  they  could  not  be 
alwaj^s  overlooked  or  denied.  The  one  is  that  Christ,  forty  days 
after  his  resurrection,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  is  now  seated  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  The  other  is  that  the 
souls  of  believers  wlien  absent  from  the  body  are  present  with  the 
Lord.  As  many  of  the  Jews,  therefore,  assumed  that  in  Sheol 
there  were  two  departments.  Paradise  and  Gehenna,  the.  one 
the  abode  of  the  righteous,  the  other  of  the  wicked  ;  so  the  Chris- 
tians, in  many  cases,  made  the  same  distinction  with  regard  to 
the  intermediate  state  ;  the  souls  of  believers  went  to  paradise ; 
the  souls  of  the  wicked  into  hell.  And  they  often  so  exalted  the 
blessedness-  of  the  former  as  to  make  it  a  mere  dispute  about 
words  whether  they  went  to  heaven  or  into  an  intermediate  state. 
The  real  controversy,  so  far  as  any  exists,  is  not  as  to  whether 


§3.]  PATRISTIC   DOCTRINE.  739 

there  is  a  state  intermediate  between  death  and  the  resurrection 
in  which  believers  are  less  glorious  and  exalted  than  they  are  to 
be  after  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  but  what  is  the  nature  of 
that  state.  Are  believers  after  death  with  Christ?  Do  their 
souls  immediately  pass  into  glory  ?  or,  are  they  in  a  dreamy, 
semi-conscious  state,  neither  happy  nor  miserable,  awaiting  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  That  this  latter  view  was  for  a  long 
time  prevalent  in  the  Church  may  be  inferred,  (1.)  From  the 
fact  that  this  was  the  view  of  the  intermediate  state  commonly 
adopted  by  the  Jews.  (2.)  It  is  the  view  attributed  to  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  (3.)  It  is  the  doctrine  avowed 
by  many  of  the  patristic  and  mediaeval  writers.  (4.)  There 
would  otherwise  be  no  ground  for  the  opposition  manifested  to 
the  doctrine  of  Protestants  on  this  subject.  Daill^  says,  "The 
doctrine  that  heaven  shall  not  be  opened  till  the  second  coming 
of  Christ,  —  that  during  that  time  the  souls  of  all  men,  mth  few 
exceptions,  are  shut  up  in  the  under-world,  —  was  held  by  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Augustine,  Origen,  Lactantius, 
Victorinus,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  CEcomenius,  Are- 
tas,  Prudentius,  Theophylact,   Bernard,  and  many  others,  as  is 

confessed  by  all This  doctrine  is   literally  held   by  the 

whole  Greek  Church  at  the  present  day  ;  nor  did  any  of  the  Lat- 
ins expressly  deny  any  part  of  it  until  the  Council  of  Florence,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1439."  i 

Fliigge^  sa,js  in  reference  to  the  early  fathers,  that  they 
"  were  not  in  doubt  as  to  the  fate  of  the  soul  when  separated 
from  the  body  until  the  resurrection,  because  they  rested  on  the 
elewish  doctrine  on  that  subject."  Justin  Martyr  speaks  in  this 
way  :  ^  [<i'7j/xt :]  Tas  [xev  [•/'i^X^'-^l  '''^'^  ^wo-e^wv  iv  KpuTTovi  irot  xo'ipii)  /xevav,  ras 
06  aSiKovi  KOL   TTOve/jas   iv  'x^.tpovL,  tov    t^s   Kpia€'i)^  eKSe^o^ueVas  ^povov  tots, 

that  is,  "I  say,  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  dwell  in  some  better 
place,  and  ungodly  and  wicked  souls  in  a  worse  place,  thus  await- 
ing the  time  of  judgment." 

The  fathers  say  but  little  about  Hades.  Hippolytus,  however, 
gives  an  account  of  it  which  is  in  substance  as  follows :  *  Hades, 
in  which  the  souls  of  the  righteous  and  unrighteous  are  detained, 
was  left  at  the  creation  in  a  state  of  chaos,  to  which  the  light  of 

1  De  Usu  Patrum,  ii.  iv.  ;  edit.  Geneva,  1G5G,  pp.  S.W,  291. 

2  Gesclii'chte  des  Glaubens  nn  UnsterbUr.like'it,  Auferst.vhunfj,  Gericht  und  Verfjeltung, 
von  W.  Fliiggc,  Universitiitsprecliger  in  Gottingon,  iii.  i.  3;  Leipzig,  170!),  vd.  iii.  piul  1, 
p.  87. 

^  Dinlofjiis  cum  Tnjphone  Jadwn,  .5;  edit.  Commelinus,  Heidelberg,  15D3,  p.  172,  lG-19. 
^  A(jalHst  Pluto  on  the  Cause  of  the   Uiucerst,  (fragment):   Ante-Nicene  Chfistian  LU 
brary,  Edinburgh,  18G9,  vol.  ix.  Hippolytus,  vol.  ii.  p.  46  ff. 


740  PART  IV.  Ch.  I— state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

the  sun  never  penetrates,  but  where  perpetual  darkness  reigns. 
This  place  is  the  prison  of  souls,  over  which  the  angels  keep 
watch.  In  Hades  there  is  a  furnace  of  unquenchable  fire  into 
which  no  one  has  yet  been  cast.  It  is  reserved  for  the  banish- 
ment of  the  wicked  at  the  end  of  the  world,  when  the  righteous 
will  be  made  citizens  of  an  eternal  kingdom.  The  good  and  the 
bad,  although  both  in  Hades,  are  not  in  the  same  part  of  it. 
They  enter  the  under-world  by  the  same  gate.  When  this  gate 
is  passed,  the  guardian  angels  guide  the  souls  of  the  departed 
different  ways  ;  the  righteous  are  guided  to  the  right  to  a  region 
full  of  light ;  the  wicked  are  constrained  to  take  the  left  hand 
path,  leading  to  a  region  near  the  unquenchable  fire.  The  good 
are  free  from  all  discomfort,  and  rejoice  in  expectation  of  their 
admission  into  heaven.  The  wicked  are  miserable  in  constant 
anticipation  of  their  coming  doom.  An  impassable  gulf  sepa- 
rates the  abode  of  the  righteous  from  that  of  the  wicked.  Here 
they  remain  until  the  resurrection,  which  he  goes  on  to  explain 
and  defend. 

Fliigge  admits  that  there  was  no  uniformity  of  representation 
on  this  subject  in  the  early  Church.  The  same  general  idea, 
however,  is  constantly  reproduced ;  the  Latins  agreeing  sub- 
stantially with  the  Greeks.  Tertullian  represents  the  under- 
world as  the  general  receptacle  of  departed  spirits  who  retain 
their  consciousness  and  activity.  In  this  unseen  world  there  are 
two  divisions,  both  called  "  Inferi."  "  Nobis  inferi  non  nuda 
cavositas,  nee  subdivalis  aliqua  mundi  sentina  ci'eduntur :  sed  in 
fossa  terra3  et  in  alto  vastitas,  et  in  ipsis  visceribus  ejus  abstrusa 
profunditas."  ^  In  this  region  there  are  two  divisions ;  the  one 
called  "  infernum,"  by  way  of  eminence,  or  Gehenna,  "  quse  est 
ignis  arcani  subterraneus  ad  poenam  thesaurus  ;  "  the  other  is 
the  bosom  of  Abraham  or  paradise,  "  divinoe  amoenitatis  recipien- 
dis  sanctorum  spiritibus  destinatum,  materia  [maceria]  quadam 
ignea3  illius  zon^e  a  notitia  orbis  communis  segregatum."  ^  Ac- 
cording to  this  mode  of  representation,  the  intermediate  state  was 
itself  a  state  of  reward  and  punishment ;  at  other  times,  how- 
ever, this  was  denied  :  all  retribution  being  reserved  to  the  day 
of  judgment.  In  the  early  (jreek  Church,  this  latter  view  was 
the  more  prevalent ;  ^  but  later  both  the  Greeks  and  Latins 
agreed  in  rec-ardinsf  the  state  of  the  rifjliteous  after  death  as  fai 
more  favourable  than  that  of  the  wicked. 

1  Tertullian,  De  Aninia,  55;    Worls,  edit.  Basle,  1532,  p.  G85. 

2  Tertullian,  Apologeticus,  47;  ut  .tajjrn,  p.  892. 
8  Flugge,  in.  i.  4;  ut  suju-a,  pp.  215,  216. 


§  3.]  PATRISTIC   DOCTRINE.  741 

The  common  views  on  this  subject  are  perhaps  fairly  repre- 
sented in  the  elaborate  work  of  the  Honourable  Archibald  Camp- 
bell, on  "  the  doctrine  of  a  middle  state  between  death  and  the 
resurrection."  ^  He  thus  sums  up  the  points  which  he  considers 
himself  to  have  proved  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  of  the 
Fathers,  and  of  the  Church  of  England. 

'  First.  That  the  souls  of  the  dead  do  remain  in  an  interme- 
diate, or  middle  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection." 

"  That  the  proper  place  appointed  for  the  abode  of  the  right- 
eous during  the  interim  between  death  and  the  resurrection, 
called  paradise,  or  Abram's  bosom,  is  not  the  highest  heavens 
where  alone  God  is  at  present,  fully  to  be  enjoyed,  but  it  is, 
however,  a  very  happy  place,  one  of  the  lower  apartments  or 
mansions  of  heaven,  a  place  of  purification  and  improvement, 
of  rest  and  refreshment,  and  of  divine  contemplation.  A  place 
whence  our  Blessed  Lord's  humanity  is  sometimes  to  be  seen, 
though  clouded  or  veiled  if  compared  with  the  glory  He  is  to 
appear  with,  and  be  seen  in,  at,  and  after  his  second  coming. 
Into  which  middle  state  and  blessed  place,  as  they  are  carried  by 
the  holy  angels,  whose  happy  fellowship  they  there  enjoy ;  so 
afterward  at  the  resurrection,  after  judgment,  they  are  led  into 
the  beatific  vision  by  the  captain  of  our  salvation,  Jesus  Christ 
Himself,  where  they  shall  see  Him  fully  as  He  is,  and  there  they 
shall  enjoy  God  forever  and  ever,  or  sempiternally." 

The  souls  of  the  wicked  at  death  do  not  go  into  hell,  but  into 
a  middle  state,  "  which  state  is  dark,  dismal,  and  uncomfortable, 
without  light,  rest,  or  any  manner  of  refreshment,  without  any 
company  but  that  of  devils  and  such  impure  souls  as  themselves 
to  converse  with,  and  where  these  miserable  souls  are  in  dismal 
apprehensions  of  the  deserved  wrath  of  God." 

"  Secondly,  That  there  is  no  immediate  judgment  after  death 
no  trial  on  which  sentence  is  pronounced,  of  neither  the  right- 
eous nor  the  wicked,  until  Christ's  second  coming.  And  that, 
therefore,  none  of  any  age  or  class  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  to  the  glorious  appearing  of  our  blessed  Saviour  at  his 
second  coming,  are  excepted  from  continuing  in  their  proper 
middle  state,  from  their  death  until  their  resurrection,  whether 
they  be  patriarchs,  prophets,  Apostles,  or  martyrs." 

"  Thirdly,  That  the  righteous  in  their  happy  middle  state,  do 
improve  in  holiness,  and  make  advances  in  perfection,  and  yet 

1  The  Doctrines  of  a  Middle  State  between  Death  and  the  Resurrection,   of  Prayers 
for  the  Dead,  etc.,  etc.,  by  Honourable  Archibald  Campbell,  London,  1721,  folio,  p.  44. 


k 


742   PART  IV.  Cii.  I.  —  STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

they  are  not  for  all  that  carried  out  of  that  middle  state  into  glory, 
or  into  the  beatific  vision,  until  after  their  resurrection." 

"  Fourthly,  That  prayers  for  those  who  are  baptized  according 
to  Christ's  appointment,  and  who  die  in  the  pale  and  peace  of  his 
Church,  which  the  ancients  called  dying  with  the  sign  of  faith,  I 
say  that  prayers  for  such  are  acceptable  to  God  as  being  fruits  of 
our  ardent  charity,  and  are  useful  both  to  them  and  to  us,  and 
are  too  ancient  to  be  popish." 

"  Lastly,  That  this  doctrine  for  an  intermediate  state  between 
death  and  the  resurrection,  as  I  have  proved  it,  does  effectually 
destroy  the  popish  purgator}',  invocation  of  the  saints  departed, 
popish  penances,  commutations  of  those  penances,  their  indul- 
gences, and  treasm'es  of  merits  purchased  by  suj)ererogation." 

As  an  example  of  the  prayers  for  the  dead  he  give§  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  Office  to  be  used  at  the  Burial  of  the  Dead 
in  the  first  Liturgy  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth  :  ^  "  O  Lord,  with 
whom  do  live  the  spirits  of  them  that  be  dead,  and  in  whom  the 
souls  of  them  that  be  elected,  after  they  be  delivered  from  the 
burden  of  the  flesh  be  in  joy  and  felicity  ;  grant  unto  this  thy 
servant  that  the  sins  which  he  committed  in  this  world  be  not  im- 
puted unto  him,  but  that  he,  escaping  the  gates  of  hell  and  pains 
of  eternal  darkness,  may  ever  dwell  in  the  region  of  light,  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  place  where  is  no  weeping, 
sorrow,  nor  heaviness  ;  and  when  that  dreadful  day  of  the  general 
resurrection  shall  come,  make  him  to  rise  also  with  the  just  and 
righteous,  and  receive  this  body  again  to  glory,  then  made  pure 
and  incorruptible." 

Jeremy  Taylor,  bishop  of  Down  and  Connor,  says :  "^  "  Paradise 
is  distinguished  from  the  heaven  of  the  blessed ;  being  itself  a 
receptacle  of  hoi}-  souls,  made  illustrous  with  visitation  of  angels, 
and  happy  by  being  a  repository  for  such  spirits,  who,  at  the  day 
of  judgment,  shall  go  forth  into  eternal  glory." 

Again,  he  says  :  ^  "  I  have  now  made  it  as  evident  as  ques- 
tions of  this  nature  will  bear,  that  in  the  state  of  separation,  the 
spirits  of  good  men  shall  be  blessed  and  happy  souls,  —  they  have 
an  antepast  or  taste  of  their  reward ;  but  their  great  reward 
itself,  their  crown  of  righteousness,  shall  not  be  yet ;  that  shall 
not  be  until  the  day  of  judgment!  ....  This  is  the  doctrine  of 

1  Published  at  London  in  the  year  1549,  folio,  cxiix.  p.  2. 

2  Life,  and  Death  of  Jesus  Christ,  ill.  xvi.  ad.  1;  3d  edit.  London,  1657,  p.  588. 

8  Seniwn  at  Funtral  of  Sir  George  Dalston  ;   Works,  edit.  London,  1828,  voL  vi.  pp» 
553,  5!)7. 


§4.]  DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  743 

the  Greek  Church  unto  this  day,  and  was  the  opinion  of  the 
greatest  part  of  the  ancient  Church  both  Latin  and  Greek  ;  and 
by  degrees  was,  in  the  west,  eaten  out  by  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory and  invocation  of  saints ;  and  rejected  a  little  above  two 
hundred  years  ago,  in  the  Council  of  Florence." 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  there  is  little  difference  between  the 
advocates  of  an  intermediate  state  and  those  who  are  regarded  a,s 
rejecting  that  doctrine.  Both  admit,  (1.)  That  the  souls  of  be 
lievers  do  at  death  pass  into  a  state  of  blessedness.  (2.)  That 
they  remain  in  that  state  until  the  resurrection.  (3.)  That  at 
the  second  coming  of  Christ,  when  the  souls  of  the  righteous  are 
to  be  clothed  with  their  glorified  bodies,  they  will  be  greatly  ex- 
alted and  raised  to  a  higher  state  of  being.  Bishop  Hickes  in  his 
highly  commendatory  review  of  the  work  of  the  Honourable  Archi- 
bald Campbell  just  referred  to,  which  is  appended  to  that  volume, 
although  he  lays  great  stress  on  the  doctrine  iii  question,  says  that 
those  who  call  the  state  into  which  the  righteous  enter,  heaven  ; 
and  that  into  which  the  wicked  are  introduced  when  they  die, 
hell,  may  continue  to  do  so,  provided  they  mean  by  heaven  a 
state  which  is  less  perfect  than  that  which  awaits  them  after  the 
coming  of  Christ ;  and  by  hell,  a  condition  less  miserable  than 
that  which  will  be  assigned  to  the  wicked. 

The  Church  of  England  agrees  with  other  Protestant  churches 
in  its  teachings  on  this  subject.  In  the  Liturgy  of  Edward  VI. 
just  quoted,  it  is  said,  (1.)  That  the  spirits  of  all  the  dead  live 
after  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  (2.)  That  the  righteous  are 
with  God  in  a  state  of  joy  and  felicity.  (3.)  That  they  have  es- 
caped the  gates  of  hell  and  the  pains  of  eternal  darkness  into 
which,  as  is  necessarily  implied,  the  souls  of  those  who  die  unrec- 
onciled to  God  immediately  enter.  All  the  members  of  that 
Church  are  taught  to  say  daily  :  "  The  glorious  company  of  the 
Apostles  praise  thee.  The  goodly  fellowship  of  the  Prophets 
praise  thee.  The  noble  army  of  Martyrs  praise  thee."  These, 
therefore,  are  all  with  God,  and  engaged  in  his  service.  In  one 
of  the  prayers  appointed  to  be  used  in  the  visitation  of  the  sick, 
these  words  occur :  "  O  Almighty  God,  with  whom  do  live  the 
souls  of  just  men  made  perfect,  after  they  are  delivered  from  their 
earthly  pj'isons."  The  souls  of  the  just,  therefore,  are  made  per- 
fect when  they  are  delivered  from  the  body. 

§  4.  Doctrine  of  the   Church  of  Rome. 
Although  Romanists  reject  the  doctrine  of    an   intermediate 


744  PART  IV.  Ch.  I.  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

state  in  the  sense  of  the  ancient  Church,  they  nevertheless  divide 
the  world  into  which  the  souls  of  men  enter  at  death,  into  many 
different  departments. 

The  Limhus  Patrum. 

They  hold  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  before  the  coming  of 
Christ  descended  into  Sheol,  where  they  remained  in  a  state  of 
expectancy  awaiting  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  When  Christ 
came  and  had  accomplished  his  work  of  redemption  by  dying  upon 
the  cross.  He  descended  into  Hades,  or  the  under-world,  where 
the  souls  of  the  patriarchs  were  confined,  delivered  them  from 
their  captivit}^  and  carried  them  in  triumph  to  lieaven.  In  other 
words  they  hold  the  common  Jewish  doctrine  as  to  the  state  of 
the  dead,  so  far  as  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  period  are 
concerned.  Their  views  on  that  subject  have  an  intimate  rela- 
tion, whether  causal  or  inferential  is  uncertain  and  unimportant, 
with  their  doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  Holding,  first,  that  the 
sacraments  are  the  only  channels  by  which  the  saving  blessings  of 
redemption  are  conveyed  to  men  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Old  Testament  signified  but  did  not  communicate 
grace,  they  could  not  avoid  the  conclusion  that  those  who  died 
before  the  coming  of  Christ  were  not  saved.  The  best  that  could 
be  hoped  concerning  them  was  that  they  were  not  lost,  but  re- 
tained in  a  salvable  state  awaiting  the  coming  deliverer.  Whether 
they  inferred  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  not  saved  be- 
cause they  had  no  grace-bearing  sacraments,  or  concluded  that 
their  sacraments  were  ineffectual,  because  those  who  had  no 
others  were  not  saved,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  The  latter  is 
the  more  probable  ;  as  most  naturally  they  received  the  doctrine 
of  Sheol  from  the  Jews,  as  they  did  so  many  other  doctrines  ;  and 
being  led  to  believe  that  the  patriarchs  were  not  in  heaven,  they 
could  not  avoid  the  conclusion  that  circumcision  and  the  passover 
were  very  far  inferior  in  efficacy  to  the  Christian  sacraments. 

The  Limhus  Infantum. 

This  is  the  name  given  to  the  place  and  state  pertaining  to  the 
departed  souls  of  unbaptized  infants.  As  this  class  includes,  per- 
haps, a  moiety  of  tlie  whole  human  race,  their  destiny  in  the  fu- 
ture world  is  a  matter  of  the  deepest  interest.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  on  this  subject  is  that  infants  dying  without 
baptism  are  not  at  death,  or  ever  after  it,  admitted  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.     They  never  partake  of  the  benefits  of  redemp- 


§4.]  DOCTRINE   OF    THE   CHURCH   OF   ROME.  745 

tion.  This  doctrine  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  symbols  of  that 
Church,  and  defended  by  its  theologians.  Cardinal  Gousset,  for 
example,  says  that  original  sin,  of  which  all  tlie  cliildren  of  Adam 
are  partakers,  is  the  death  of  the  soul.  Its  consequences  in  this 
life  are  ignorance  or  obscuration  of  the  understanding,  feebleness 
of  the  will  which  can  do  nothing  spiritually  good  without  the  as- 
sistance of  divine  grace,  concupiscence  or  revolt  of  our  lower 
nature,  infirmities,  sorrow,  and  the  death  of  the  body.  Its  con- 
sequences in  the  life  to  come  are  exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  privation  of  life  eternal,  of  the  beatific  vision  ;  "no  one 
can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  unless  he  be  born  again  in 
Jesus  Christ  by  baptism  ;  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  This  is 
what  faith  teaches,  but  it  goes  no  further.  The  Church  leaves  to 
the  discussions  of  the  schools  the  different  opinions  of  theologians 
touching  the  fate  of  those  who  are  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  account  of  original  sin  ;  infants,  for  example,  who  die 
without  having  received  the  sacrament  of  baptism,"^ 

Perrone  speaking  on  this  subject  says,  "  We  must  distinguish 
the  certain  from  the  uncertain.  What  is  certain,  yea,  a  matter  of 
faith,  we  have  from  the  decisions  of  the  Second  Council  of  Lyons 
and  the  Council  of  Florence,  both  of  which  declare  concerning 
infants  and  idiots  :  '  Credimus  ....  illorum  animas,  qui  in  mortali 
peccato  vel  cum  solo  originali  decedunt,  mox  in  infernum  descen- 
dere,  poenis  tamen  disparibus  puniendas.'  Ita  quidem  Florenti- 
num  '  in  decreto  Unionis,'  quod  descripsit  verba  Lugdunensis  in 
fidei  professione.  De  fide  igitur  est,  (1.)  parvulos  ejusmodi  in  infer- 
num descendere  sen  damnationem  incurrere  ;  (2.)  poenis  puniri  dis- 
paribus ab  illis  quibus  puniuntur  adulti.  Quib  proinde  spectant 
ad  hunc  inferni  locum,  ad  poenarum  disparitatem,  seu  in  quo  haec 
disparitas  constituenda  sit,  ad  parvulorum  statum  post  judicii 
diem  incerta  sunt  omnia,  nee  fidem  attingunt.  Hinc  varioe  de  his 
sunt  patrura  ac  theologorum  sententiae."  ^  Perrone  goes  on  to 
show  that  the  Latin  fathers  represent  infants  as  suffering  "  poe- 
nam  sensus  ;  "  while  most  of  Greek  fathers  say  that  they  incur 
only  "  poenam  damni,"  a  sense  of  loss  in  being  deprived  of  the 
bli^ssedness  of  heaven.  What  that  involves,  however,  he  says  is 
much  disputed  among  theologians. 

The  Scriptural  proof  of  this  doctrine,  as  argued  by  Romanists, 

1  Theolof/ie  Dof/mntique,  par  S.   t,.  le   Cardinal   Gonsset,  Archeveque  de  Keims,  10th 
edit.  Paris,  1800,  vol.  ii.  pp.  95,  90. 
-  PrcElectiones  Theolngicce,  edit.  Paris,  1801,  vol.  i.  p.  49-1. 


746  PART  IV.  Ch.  I— state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

is  principally  twofold  ;  the  first  is  derived  from  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin.  They  admit  that  the  sin  of  Adam  brought  guilt  and 
spmtual  death  upon  all  mankind.  Baptism  is  the  only  means 
appointed  for  the  deliverance  of  men  from  these  dreadful  evils. 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  unbaptized  remain  under  this  guilt  and 
pollution.  The  second  great  argument  is  founded  upon  John  iii. 
5,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  Romanists  understand  as 
an  explicit  declaration  that  the  unbaptized  cannot  be  saved.  On 
this,  however,  as  on  all  other  subjects,  their  main  dependence  is 
upon  the  decision  of  Councils  and  the  testimony  of  the  fathers. 
Besides  the  Councils  of  Lyons  and  Florence,  both  regarded  as  ec- 
umenical by  Romanists,  appeal  is  made  to  the  canons  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  "  Si  quis  parvulos  recentes  ab  uteris  matrum  bap- 
tizandos  negat,  etiam  si  a  bajDtizatis  parentibus  orti ;  aut  dicit  in 
remissionem  quidem  peccatorum  eos  baptizari,  sed  nihil  ex  Adam 
vtrahere  originalis  peccati,  quod  regenerationis  lavacro  necesse  sit 

expiari  ad  vitam  feternam  consequendam anathema  sit."  ^ 

The  Synod  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  416,  is  also  quoted,  which  decided :  ^ 
"  Quicunque  negat,  parvulos  per  baptismum  Christi  a  perditione 
liberari,  et  salutem  percipere  posse ;  anathema  sit."  Although 
the  councils  declare  that  the  souls  of  unbaptized  infants  descend 
immediately  into  hell,  Cardinal  Gousset  remarks,  it  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  there  are  many  departments  in  hell.  There  was 
one  for  the  impenitent  who  died  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
another  for  the  souls  of  the  righteous  who  awaited  the  advent  of 
the  Messiah  ;  so  there  is  no  reason  for  denying  that  there  is  still 
another  for  the  souls  of  unbaptized  infants.  "  We  repeat,"  he 
says,^  "  that  neither  the  Council  of  Florence  nor  that  of  Lyons 
pronounces  on  the  nature  of  the  punishment  of  those  Avho  die 
with  only  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  except  to  show  that  they  are 
forever  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  We  can,  there- 
fore, without  going  counter  to  the  decisions  of  the  Church,  main- 
tain the  sentiment  which  exempts  such  unfortunates  from  the 
punishment  of  hell,  and  the  rather  because  the  opposite  opinion 
is  generally  abandoned,  and  this  abandonment  is  in  accord  with 
Pope  Innocent  IIL,  who,  distinguishing  between  the  punishment 
of  original  and  of  actual  sin,  makes  the  latter  to  be  the  pain  of 

1  Sess.  v.,  canon  4;  Streitwolf,  vol.  i.  pp.  18,  19. 

2  Quoted  by  Perrone,  Prahctianes  Thcologicm,  iii.  vi.  599 ;  edit.  Paris,  1861,  vol.  i.  ppt 
196.  497. 

*  Gousset,  ut  supra,  p.  96. 


§4.]  DOCTRINE   OF  THE    CHURCH    OF   ROME.  747 

eternal  fire ;  the  former,  tlie  simple  loss  of  tlie  beatific  (or  intui- 
tive) vision :  "  Ptx'na  orig-inalis  peccati  est  carentia  visionis  Dei, 
actualis  vero  poena  peccati  est  geliennae  perpetute  criiciatus."  ^ 
On  the  following  page  he  says,  "  We  will  go  still  further,  and  say 
with  St.  Thomas,  that  although  unbaptized  infants  are  deprived 
forever  of  the  happiness  of  the  saints,  they  suffer  neither  sorrow 
nor  sadness  in  consequence  of  that  privation."  It  is  a  matter  of 
rejoicing  that  the  doctrine  of  Romanists  on  the  condition  of  un- 
baptized infants  in  a  future  life  has  admitted  of  this  amelioration, 
although  it  is  hard  to  reconcile  it  with  the  decisions  of  councils 
which  declare  that  the  souls  of  such  infants  do  at  death  immedi- 
ately descend  into  hell,  if  that  word  be  understood  according  to 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  generally  used  when  those  decisions  were 
made.  The  current  representations  of  the  theologians  of  the 
Latin  Church  are  against  this  modified  form  of  the  doctrine.  The 
Council  of  Trent  anathematizes  those  who  say  that  baptism  is  not 
necessary  for  the  expiation  of  original  sin ;  as  that  of  Carthage 
those  who  affirm  that  it  does  not  save  infants  from  perdition. 
Romanists,  however,  of  our  day,  have  the  right  to  state  their  doc- 
trine in  their  own  way,  and  should  not  be  charged  with  holding 
sentiments  which  they  repudiate. 

Hell. 

Hell  is  defined  by  Romanists  as  the  place  or  state  in  which  the 
fallen  angels  and  men  who  die  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin,  or,  as  it 
is  also  expressed,  of  final  impenitence,  suffer  forever  the  punish- 
ment of  their  sins. 

That  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  unending  they  prove 
from  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture,  from  the  faith  of  the 
Church  universal,  and  from  the  general  belief  of  men.  As  to  the 
nature  of  the  sufferings  of  those  who  perish,  they  say  they  are 
those  of  loss  ;  they  are  deprived  of  the  favour,  vision,  and  pres- 
ence of  God  ;  and  those  "  of  sense,"  or  of  positive  infliction.  To 
this  latter  class  are  to  be  referred  such  sufferings  as  arise  from 
wicked  passions,  from  remorse  and  despair,  as  well  as  those 
which  spring  from  the  external  circumstances  in  which  the  finally 
condemned  are  placed.  Whether  the  unquenchable  fire  of  which 
the  Bible  speaks,  is  to  be  understood  literally  or  figuratively,  is  a 
question  about  which  Romanists  differ.  Gousset  proposes  the 
question,  and  says  that  it  is  one  on  which  the  Church  has  given 
no  decisions.     "  It  is  of  faith,"  he  says,  "  that  the  condemned 

1  Innocent  III.  Caput  "  Majores"  de  Baptismo. 


748  PART  IV.  Ch.  I. -STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

shall  be  eternally  deprived  of  the  happiness  of  heaven,  and  that 
they  shall  be  eternally  tormented  in  hell ;  but  it  is  not  of  faith 
that  the  fire  which  causes  their  suffering  is  material.  Many  doc- 
tors, whose  opinion  has  not  been  condemned,  think  that  as  '  the 
worm  which  never  dies  '  is  a  figurative  expression,  so  also  is 
'  the  fire  that  is  never  quenched  ; '  and  that  the  fire  means  a 
pain  analogous  to  tliat  by  fire  rather  than  the  real  pain  produced 
by  fire.  Nevertheless  the  idea  that  the  fire  spoken  of  is  real  ma- 
terial fire  is  so  general  among  Catholics,  that  we  do  not  venture 
to  advance  a  contrary  opinion."  ^ 

Into  this  place  and  state  of  endless  misery  do  pass,  at  death, 
all  who  die  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  all  the  un- 
baptized  (at  least  among  adults)  ;  all  schismatics  ;  all  heretics ; 
all  who  die  impenitent,  or  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin,  that  is,  sin 
the  penalty  of  which  is  eternal  death,  which  has  not  been  remit- 
ted by  priestly  absolution. 

Heaven. 

Heaven,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  place  and  state  of  the 
blessed,  where  God  is ;  where  Christ  is  enthroned  in  majesty,  and 
where  are  the  angels  and  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect. 
Those  who  enter  heaven  are  in  possession  of  the  supreme  good. 
"  The  happiness  of  the  saints  above  is  complete  ;  they  possess 
God,  and  in  that  possession  they  find  perfect  rest,  and  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  good."  Their  blessedness  is  perfect  because  it  is 
everlasting.  They  see  God  face  to  face.  They  will  eternally 
love  Him  and  be  loved  by  Him.  "  Beatitudo,  qufe  etiam  sum- 
mum  bonum  aut  ultimus  finis  nuncupatur,  a  Boetio  ^  definitur  : 
'  status  bonorum  omnium  congregatione  perfectus  ; '  a  S.  Augus- 
tino,^  '  Bonorum  omnium  sum  ma  et  cumulus ; '  a  scholasticis 
autem :  '  summum  bonum  apjjetivus  rationalis  satiativum.'  "  ^  It 
is,  therefore,  heaven  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  into  which 
the  saints  are  said  to  enter. 

There  are,  however,  degrees  in  this  blessedness.  "  The  elect," 
says  Cardinal  Gousset,  "  in  heaven,  see  God  in  a  manner  more  or 
less  perfect,  according  as  they  have  more  or  less  of  merit,  '  pro 
meritorum  diversitate,'  as  it  is  expressed  by  the  Council  of 
Florence,  wliich  agrees  with  the  words  of  our  Lord,  wlio  says, 
'  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions.'"^     Into  this  only  a 

1  Gousset,  ut  supra,  p.  160. 

2  Consoliitio  PltUosnphice,  Lib.  iii,  prosa  2;  Lyons,  1G71,  p.  107. 

8  Enarratio  in.  Psnlmum,  ii.  11 ;    Works,  Paris,  1835,  vol.  iv.  p.  8,  c. 

*  Perrone,  ul  supra,  vol.  i.  p.  4G7.  6  Gousset,  p.  132. 


§4]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.       749 

few,  however,  even  of  true  believers,  according  to  Romanists,  enter 
at  death.  The  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state, 
as  has  been  shown,  assert  that  none  of  the  human  family,  whether 
patriarch,  prophet.  Apostle,  or  martyr,  is  admitted  to  the  vision 
of  God  when  he  leaves  the  body  ;  and  that  none  of  the  wicked 
goes  into  the  place  of  final  retribution.  Both  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  remain  in  a  middle  state,  awaiting  their  final  doom 
and  location  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  As  to  both  these 
points,  Romanists  are  more  nearly  agreed  with  the  great  body  of 
Protestants. 

On  this  point  the  Council  of  Florence  says  :  "  Credimus  .... 
illorum  animas,  qui  post  baptismum  susceptum  nullam  omnino 
peccati  maculam  incurrerunt,  illas  etiam  animas  qu^e  post  con- 
tractam  peccati  maculam  vel  in  suis  corporibus,  vel  eisdem  exutae 
corporibus  sunt  purgatae  in  coelum  mox  recipi,  et  intueri  clare 
ipsum  Deum  trinum  et  unum  sicuti  est."  This  doctrine  Roman- 
ists assert  not  only  in  opposition  to  those  who  teach  that  the  soul 
dies  Avith  the  body  and  is  revived  at  the  resurrection,  but  also  to 
those  who  say  that  the  souls  even  of  the  perfectly  purified  "  in 
aliqua  requie  degere,  donee  post  corporum  resurrectionem  adipis- 
cantur  aternam  beatitudinem,  quam  interim  expectant."  This 
error,  Perrone  says,  widely  disseminated  among  the  Greeks,  was 
adopted  by  Luther  and  Calvin.^ 

Two  classes  of  persons,  therefore,  according  to  this  view,  enter 
heaven  before  the  resurrection ;  first,  those  who  are  perfectly 
purified  at  the  time  of  death ;  and  second,  those  who,  although 
not  thus  perfect  when  they  leave  this  world,  have  become  per- 
fect in  purgatory. 

Purgatory. 

According  to  Romanists,  all  those  who  die  in  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  but  are  not  perfect,  pass  into  purgatory  ;  with  regard 
to  which  they  teach,  (1.)  That  it  is  a  state  of  suffering.  The 
commonly  received  traditional,  though  not  symbolical,  doctrine  on 
this  point  is,  that  the  suffering  is  from  material  fire.  The  design 
of  this  suffering  is  both  expiation  and  purification.  (2.)  That 
the  duration  and  intensity  of  purgatorial  pains  are  proportioned 
to  the  guilt  and  impurity  of  the  sufferers.  (3.)  That  there  is  no 
known  or  defined  limit  to  the  continuance  of  the  soul  in  purga- 
tory, but  the  day  of  judgment.  The  departed  may  remain  in 
this  state  of  suffering  for  a  few  hours  or  for  thousands  of  years. 
(4.)  That  souls  in  purgatory  may  be  helped  ;  that  is,  their  suffer- 

1   Ut  supra,  p.  473. 


750  PART  IV.  Ch.  I.— state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

ings  alleviated  or  the  duration  of  them  shortened  by  the  prayers 
of  the  saints,  and  especially  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  (5.) 
That  purgatory  is  under  the  power  of  the  ke^'s.  That  is,  it  is  the 
prerogative  of  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  at  their  discretion, 
to  remit  entirely  or  partially  the  penalty  of  sins  under  which 
the  souls  there  detained  are  suffering. 

This  doctrine  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  whole  Romish  system. 
According  to  that  system,  (1.)  Christ  delivers  us  only  from  the 
"  reatus  culpae,"  and  exposure  to  eternal  death.  (2.)  For  all 
sins  committed  after  baptism  the  offender  must  make  satisfaction 
by  penance  or  good  works.  (3.)  This  satisfaction  must  be  com- 
plete and  the  soul  purified  from  all  sin,  before  it  can  enter 
heaven.  (4.)  This  satisfaction  and  purification,  if  not  effected  in 
this  life,  must  be  accomplished  after  death.  (5.)  The  eucharist 
is  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  intended  to  secure  the  pardon  of  post- 
baptismal  sins,  and  takes  effect  according  to  the  intention  of  the 
officiating  priest.  Therefore,  if  he  intends  it  for  the  benefit  of 
any  soul  in  purgatory,  it  inures  to  his  advantage.  (6.)  The  pope, 
being  the  vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  has  full  power  to  forgive  sin  ; 
that  is,  to  exempt  offenders  from  the  obligation  to  make  satisfac- 
tion for  their  offences. 

Moehler,  and  other  philosophical  defenders  of  Romanism,  soften 
down  the  doctrine  by  representing  purgatory  simply  as  a  state  of 
gradual  preparation  of  the  imperfectly  sanctified  for  admission 
into  heaven,  making  no  mention  of  positive  suffering,  much  less 
of  material  fire.  Cardinal  Gousset  does  not  go  so  far  as  this,  yet 
he  says  :  ^  "  It  is  of  faith,  (1.)  That  the  righteous  who  die  without 
having  entirely  satisfied  divine  justice,  must  make  satisfaction 
after  this  life  by  temporary  pains,  which  are  called  pains  of  pur- 
gatory ;  (2.)  That  the  souls  in  purgatory  are  relieved  by  the 
prayers  of  the  Church.  This  is  what  the  faith  teaches  ;  but  it 
stops  there.  Is  purgatory  a  particular  place  rather  than  a  state, 
or  a  state  rather  than  a  particular  place  ?  Are  the  pains  of 
purgatory  due  to  fire,  or  are  the  pains  those  which  arise  from  the 
consciousness  of  having  offended  God?  What  are  the  severity 
and  duration  of  those  pains  ?  These  and  other  questions  of  like 
kind,  are  not  included  in  the  domain  of  Catholic  doctrine.  These 
are  questions  about  which  there  exists  no  decision  or  judgment  of 
the  Church.  Nevertheless  it  should  be  known  that  in  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  theologia,ns  the  torments  of  purgatory  consist 
in  part  in  those  of  fire,  or,  at  least,  in  such  as  are  analogous  to 

1  Gousset,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii.  143. 


§4.J      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.      751 

the  pain  produced  by  fire.  We  will  add  that,  according  to  Saint 
Augustine  and  Saint  Thomas,  whose  opinion  is  generally  adopted 
(dont  le  sentiment  est  assez  suivi),  the  pains  of  purgatory  sur- 
pass those  of  this  Hfe  :  "  Poena  purgatorii,"  says  the  angelic  Doc- 
tor,i  a  qviantum  ad  poenam  damni  et  sensus,  excedit  omuem 
poenam  istius  vitge." 

Cardinal  Wiseman,^  in  his  lecture  on  this  subject,  speaks  in  the 
mildest  terms.  He  says  nothing  of  the  pains  of  purgatory  except 
that  they  are  pains.  The  satisfaction  for  sin  demanded  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  be  rendered  in  this  world,  consists  of  prayers, 
fastings,  almsgiving,  and  the  like  ;  and  we  are  told  that  if  this 
satisfaction  be  not  made  before  death,  it  must  be  made  after  it. 
This  is  all  that  the  Cardinal  ventures  to  say.  He  has  not  courage 
to  lift  the  veil  from  the  burning  lake  in  which  the  souls  in  purga- 
tory are  represented  as  suffering,  according  to  the  common  faith 
of  Romanists.  Although  it  is  true  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
wisely  abstained  from  any  authoritative  decision  as  to  the  nature 
and  intensity  of  purgatorial  sufferings,  it  does  not  thereby  escape 
responsibility  on  the  subject.  It  allows  free  circulation  with  ec- 
clesiastical sanction,  expressed  or  implied,  of  books  containing  the 
most  frightful  exhibitions  of  the  sufferings  of  purgatory  which  the 
imagination  of  man  can  conceive.  This  doctrine,  therefore,  how- 
ever mildly  it  may  be  presented  in  works  designed  for  Protestant 
readers,  is  nevertheless  a  tremendous  engine  of  priestl}^  power. 
The  feet  of  the  tiger  with  the  claws  withdrawn  are  as  soft  as  vel- 
vet ;  when  those  claws  are  extended,  they  are  fearful  instruments 
of  laceration  and  death. 

Arguments  used  in  favour  of  the  Doctrine. 
1.  Romanists  make  comparatively  little  use  of  Scripture  in  de- 
fence of  their  peculiar  doctrines.^     Their  main  support  is  tradition 

1  See  Aquinas,  Summn,  iii.  xlvi.  6,  3. 

2  Lectures  on  the  Principal  Doctrines  and  Practices  of  the  Catholic  Church.  By  Cardi- 
nal Wiseman.  Two  volumes  in  one.  Sixth  American  from  the  last  London  edition.  Re- 
vised and  Corrected.     Baltimore.  1870.     Lecture  XI.     On  Satisfaction  and  Purgatory. 

3  Cardinal  Wiseman  says:  "I  have  more  than  once  commented  on  the  incorrectness  of 
that  method  of  arjifuing  which  demands  that  we  prove  every  one  of  our  doctrines  individ- 
ually from  the  Scriptures.  I  occupied  myself,  durin.s;^  my  first  course  of  lectures,  in  dem- 
onstrating tiie  Catholic  principle  of  faith  that  the  Church  of  Christ  was  constituted  by  Him 
the  depositary  of  his  truths,  and  that,  although  many  were  recorded  in  his  holy  word,  still 
many  were  committed  to  traditional  keeping,  and  that  Christ  Himself  has  faithfully  prom- 
ised to  teach  in  his  Church,  and  has  thus  secured  her  from  error."  Lectures,  ut  supra,  xi. 
vol.  ii.  p.  45.  This  resolves  all  controversies  with  Komanists  into  two  questions.  First, 
ivhat  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Church  as  a  teacher;  and  secondly,  is  the  Church  of  Rome, 
or  any  other  external  organized  body,  the  body  of  Christ  to  which  the  prerogatives  and 
promises  of  the  Church  belong  ? 


752  PART  IV.  Ch.  L  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

and  the  authority  of  the  Church.  Cardinal  Wiseman  cites  but 
two  passages  from  the  New  Testament  in  favour  of  the  doctrine 
of  purgatory.  The  first  is  our  Lord's  saying  that  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  shall  never  be  forgiven  either  in  this  world  or  in 
the  world  to  come.  This  is  said  to  imply  that  there  are  sins  which 
are  not  forgiven  in  this  life  which  may  be  forgiven  hereafter ;  and 
therefore  that  the  dead,  or  at  least  a  part  of  their  number,  are  not 
past  forgiveness  when  they  die.  This  is  a  slender  thread  on 
wliich  to  hang  so  great  a  weight.  The  words  of  Christ  contain 
no  such  implication..  To  say  that  a  thing  can  never  happen  either 
here  or  hereafter,  in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come,  is  a  fa- 
miliar way  of  saying  that  it  can  never  happen  under  any  circum- 
stances. Our  Lord  simply  said  that  blasphemy  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
can  never  be  forgiven.  The  other  passage  is  from  Revelation  xxi. 
27,  where  it  said  that  nothing  that  defileth  shall  enter  heaven. 
But  as  very  few,  if  any  of  the  human  family,  are  perfectly  pure 
when  they  die,  it  follows  that,  if  there  be  no  place  or  process  of 
purification  after  death,  few  if  any  of  the  sons  of  men  could  be 
saved ;  or,  as  Cardinal  Wiseman  puts  the  argument,  "  Suppose 
that  a  Christian  dies  who  had  committed  some  slight  transgression ; 
he  caniiot  enter  heaven  in  this  state,  and  yet  we  cannot  suppose 
that  he  is  to  be  condemned  forever.  What  alternative,  then,  are 
we  to  admit  ?  Why,  that  tliere  is  some  place  in  which  the  soul 
will  be  purged  of  the  sin,  and  qualified  to  enter  into  tlie  glory  of 
God."^  But  .does  not  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanse  from  all  sin? 
Were  not  the  sins  of  Paul  all  forgiven  the  moment  he  believed  ? 
Did  the  penitent  thief  enter  pui-gatory  instead  of  paradise  ?  To 
minds  trained  under  the  influence  of  evangelical  doctrine,  such  ar- 
guments as  the  above  cannot  have  the  slightest  weight. 

2.  Great  stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  custom  of  praying 
for  the  dead   prevailed    early   and  long   in  the   Church.     Such 
prayers  take  for  granted  that  the  dead  need  our  prayers  ;  and  this 
supposes  that   they  are  not    in  heaven.      But  if  not  in  heaven 
where  can  they  be  except  in  a  preparatory  or  purgatorial  state  ? 
To   this  it  may  be  answered,   (1.)   That  praying  for  the  dead 
is  a  superstitious  practice,  having  no  support  from  the  Bible.     Iti 
was  one  of  the  corruptions  early   introduced  into  the   Church. 
It  will  not  do  to  argue  from  one  corruption  in  support  of  another,] 
(2.)   Those  who  vindicate  the  propriety  of  praying  for  the  dead] 
are  often  strenuous  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.     Dr. 
Pusey,  for  example,  says  :  "  Since  Rome  has  blended  the  cruel  in- 

1  Lectures,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  49. 


§4.]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.      753 

vention  of  purgatory  with  the  primitive  custom  of  praying  for  the 
dead,  it  is  not  in  communion  with  her  that  any  can  seek  comfort 
from  this  rite."  ^  The  early  Christians  prayed  for  the  souls  of 
Apostles  and  martyrs,  whom  they  assuredly  believed  were  already 
in  heaven.  It  was  not,  therefore,  for  any  alleviation  of  their  suf- 
ferings, as  Dr.  Pusey  argues,  that  such  prayers  were  offered,  but 
for  the  augmentation  of  their  happiness,  and  the  consummation  of 
their  blessedness  at  the  last  day. 

3.  The  argument  of  most  logical  force  to  those  who  believe  the 
premises  whence  it  is  derived,  is  drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  satis- 
faction. The  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject  includes  the  follow- 
ing principles  :  "•  (1.)  That  God,  after  the  remission  of  sin,  retains 
a  lesser  chastisement  in  his  power,  to  be  inflicted  on  the  sinner. 
(2.)  That  penitential  works,  fasting,  alms-deeds,  contrite  weep- 
ing, and  fervent  prayer,  have  the  power  of  averting  that  pun- 
ishment. (3.)  That  this  scheme  of  God's  justice  was  not  a  part 
of  the  imperfect  law,  but  the  unvarying  ordinance  of  his  dispensa- 
tion, anterior  to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  amply  confirmed  by  Christ 
in  the  gospel.  (4.)  That  it  consequentl}^  becomes  a  part  of  all 
true  repentance  to  try  to  satisfy  this  divine  justice  by  the  vol- 
untary assumption  of  such  penitential  works  as  his  revealed  truth 
assures  have  efficacy  before  Him."  ^  In  connection  with  this  is  to 
be  taken  the  doctrine  of  indulgences.  This  doctrine,  we  are  told, 
rests  on  the  following  grounds  :  (1.)  "  That  satisfaction  has  to  be 
made  to  God  for  sin  remitted,  under  the  authority  and  regulation 
of  the  Church.  (2.)  That  the  Church  has  always  considered 
herself  possessed  of  the  authority  to  mitigate,  by  diminution  or 
commutation,  the  penance  which  she  enjoins ;  and  she  has  always 
reckoned  such  a  mitigation  valid  before  God,  who  sanctions  and 
accepts  it.  (3.)  That  the  sufferings  of  the  saints,  in  miion  with, 
and  by  virtue  of  Christ's  merits,  are  considered  available  towarda 
the  granting  this  mitigation.     (4.)   That  such  mitigations,  when 

1  An  earnest  Remonstrance  to  the  author  of  the  "Papers  Pastoral  Letter  to  Certain 
Members  of  the  University  of  Oxford,^'  London,  1838,  p.  25.  The  Hon.  Archibald  Camp- 
bell, whose  work  is  quoted  above,  says  that  all  the  authorities  to  which  he  refers  from 
among  the  English  Bishops  and  theologians,  side  with  him  in  defending  prayers  for  the 
dead  and  in  denouncing  purgatory. 

2  W^iseman,  lU  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  40.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  Cardinal,  in  detailing  tlio 
kind  of  satisfaction  to  be  made,  mentions  fasting,  alms-giving,  and  prayer,  but  says  noth- 
ing of  scourgings,  hair  siiirts,  spiked  girdles,  and  all  other  means  of  self-torture  so  common 
and  so  applauded  in  the  Romish  Church.  In  this  way  he  softens  down  and  understates  all 
''  Catholic  Doctrines  and  Practices,"  to  render  them  less  revolting  to  the  reason  and  con- 
science of  his  readers.  Purgatory  with  him  is  a  bed  of  roses  with  here  and  there  a  thorn, 
insteaa  of  the  lake  of  real  fire  and  brimstone  which  glares  through  all  Church  history. 

VOL   III.  48 


754     PART  IV.     Ch.   I.  — state   OF    SOUL   AFTER   DEATH. 

prudentl}'  and  justly  granted,  are  conducive  toward  the  spiritual 
weal  and  profit  of  Christians."  ^ 

We  have  thus  a  broad  foundation  laid  for  the  whole  doctrine 
of  purgiitory.  God  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin  remits  only  the  pen- 
alty of  eternal  death.  There  remain  temporal  pains  to  be  en- 
dured in  satisfaction  of  divine  justice;  If  such  satisfaction  be  not 
made  in  this  world,  it  must  be  rendered  in  the  next.  The  Church 
has  the  power  of  regulating  these  satisfactions,  of  directing  what 
they  shall  be,  of  mitigating  or  commuting  them  in  this  life,  and 
of  lessening  their  severity  or  duration  in  the  life  to  come.  The 
infinite  merit  of  Christ,  and  the  superfluous  merits  of  all  the 
saints,  gained  by  works  of  supererogjition,  form  an  inexhaustible 
treasury,  from  which  the  Pope  and  his  subordinates  may  draw  at 
discretion  for  the  mitigation,  or  plenary  dispensation,  of  all  the 
satisfaction  due  for  sin  in  the  way  of  penance  in  this  life,  or  the 
pains  of  purgatory  in  the  life  to  come.  Now  when  it  is  consid- 
ered that  the  pains  of  purgatory  are  authoritatively  and  almost 
universally  represented  by  Romanists  to  be  intolerably  severe,  it 
will  be  seen  that  no  such  engine  of  power,  no  such  means  of  subju- 
gating the  people,  or  of  exalting  and  enriching  the  priesthood  has 
ever  been  claimed  or  conceded  by  man.  Men  really  invested  with 
this  power,  of  necessity,  and  of  right,  are  the  absolute  masters  of 
their  fellow  men  ;  and  those  who  wrongfully  claim  it,  who  as- 
sume without  possessing  it,  are  the  greatest  impostors  (consciously 
or  unconsciously)  and  the  greatest  tyrants  the  world  ever  saw. 

4.  With  Romanists  themselves  the  greatest  argument  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  tradition.  They  claim  that  it  has 
always  been  held  in  the  Church ;  and  in  support  of  that  claim 
they  quote  from  the  fathers  all  passages  which  speak  of  purifica- 
tion by  fire,  or  of  praying  for  the  dead.  They  usually  begin  with 
the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees  xii.  43,  where  it  is  said  that  Judas 
Maccabeus  sent  "  2,000  drachmas  of  silver  to  Jerusalem  for  sacri- 
fice, to  be  offered  for  the  sins  "  of  the  dead.  The}^  cite  Tertul- 
lian,^  who  advised  a  widow  to  pray  for  her  husband,  and  to  offer 
oblations  for  him  on  the  anniversary  of  his  death  ;  Cyprian,^-\vho 
saj's  that  if  a  man  committed  a  certain  offence,  "  no  oblation  should 
be  made  for  him,  nor  sacrifice  offered  for  his  repose  ;  "  Basil,  who 
says  of  Isaiah  ix.  19,  "  The  people  shall  I  e  as  the  fuel  of  the  fire," 

OVK  a.(^ari(Tjxo\'  aTrefAe",  dA.Aa  tt/1'  KixOapcni'  VTrof^atiei,  that  is,  "  it  doCS  UOfc 

threaten  extermination,  but  denotes  purification  ;  "  ^  Cyril  of  Je- 

1  Ihid.  vol.  ii.  p.  70.  2  J)e  Monogamia,  10;    Works,  edit.  Basle,  1502,  p.  578. 

8  Ep.  xlvi.  p.  lU.   ( ?) 

4  /»  Esaim,  ix.  19;   Works,  edit.  Paris,  1618,  vol.  i.  p.  1039,  d. 


§4.]  DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCPI   OF. ROME.  755 

nisalem,  who  says :  "  Deinde  et  pro  defunctis  Sanctis  patribus  et 
episcopis,  et  omnibus  generatim,  qui  inter  nos  vita  functi  sunt, 
oramus,  maximum  hoc  credentes  adjumentum  iUis  animabus  fore, 
pro  quibus  oratio  defertur,  dum  sancta  et  tremenda  coram  jacet 
victima  ;  "  ^  that  is,  "  Then  we  pray  for  the  holy  fathers  and  the 
bishops  that  are  dead  ;  and,  in  short,  for  all  those  wlio  are  de- 
parted this  life  in  our  communion  ;  believing  that  the  souls  of  those 
for  whom  the  prayers  are  offered,  receive  very  great  relief  while 
this  holy  and  tremendous  victim  lies  upon  the  altar  ;  "  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,^  who  says  that  in  this  life  the  sinner  may  "  be  renovated 
by  prayers  and  by  the  pursuit  of  wisdom  ;  "  but  when  he  has 
quitted  his  body,  "  he  cannot  be  admitted  to  approach  the  Divin- 
ity till  the  purging  fire  shall  have  expiated  the  stains  with  which 
his  soul  was  infected ; "  Ambrose,^  who  thus  comments  upon  1 
Corinthians  iii.  15,  "  He  ....  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire." 
The  Apostle  says,  "  '  Yet  so  as  by  fire, '  in  order  that  his  salvation 
be  not  understood  to  be  without  pain.  He  shows  that  he  shall  be 
saved  indeed,  but  he  shall  undergo  the  pain  of  fire,  and  be  thus 
purified  ;  not  like  the  unbelieving  and  wicked  man,  who  shall  be 
punished  in  everlasting  fire;"  Jerome,*  who  says:  "  As  we  be- 
lieve the  torments  of  the  devil,  and  of  those  wicked  men,  who  said 
in  their  hearts,  '  There  is  no  God,'  to  be  eternal ;  so,  in  regard  to 
tliose  sinners,  impious  men,  and  even  Christians,  and  whose  works 
will  be  proved  and  purged  by  fire,  we  conclude  that  the  sentence 
of  the  judge  will  be  tempered  by  mercy  ;  "  and  Augustine,^  who 
says :  "  The  prayers  of  the  Church,  or  of  good  persons,  are  heard 

1  Catecliem  .Ifystaf/nrjicn,  v.  9;  Opera,  Venice,  1703,  p.  328,  a,  b. 

2  Oratio  de  Mortuis  ;  Worhs,  Paris,  1615,  vol.  ii.  pp.  1006-1008. 

3  "Dixit:  'Sic  tamen  quasi  per  ifriieni,'  ut  salus  h;vc  non  sine  pcenasit:  ....  ostendit 
salviim  ilium  quiJem  futurum ;  sed  pa-nas  ignis  passurum,  ut  per  ignem  purgatus  fiat  salvus, 
et  non  sicut  pertidi  oeterno  igne  in  perpetuum  torqueatur."  Works,  edit.  Paris,  IGGl,  vol. 
iii.  p.  351,  a. 

4  Comment  in  c.  Ixr.  Isa.  Opera,  Paris,  1579,  tome  iv.,  p.  502,  d,  e. 

6  "Nam  pro  defunctis  quibusi.ani,  vel  ipsius  Ecciesiffi,  vel  quorumdam  pioruni  exauditur 
oratio:  sed  pro  his  quorum  in  Christo  regeneratorum  nee  usque  adeo  vita  in  corpore  male 
gesta  est  ut  tali  misericordia  judicentur  digni  non  esse,  nee  usque  adeo  bene,  ut  talem  mis- 
ericordiam  reperiantur  necessariam  non  habere.  Sicut  etiam  facta  resurrectione  mortuoruni 
non  deeruiit  quibus  post  poenas,  quas  patiuntur  spiritus  niortuorum.  impertiatiir  misericor- 
dia, ut  in  ignem  non  mittantur  aHernum.  Neque  enim  de  quibusdam  veraciter  diceretur, 
quod  non  eis  remittatur  neque  in  hoc  sa?culo,  neque  in  futuro,  nisi  essent  quibus,  etsi  non 
in  isto,  tamen  remittetur  in  futuro."  De  Civitale  Dei,  xxi.  xxiv.  2;  M'orLs,  2il  Benedic- 
tine edition,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  vii.  p.  1028,  c,  d.  "  iEdificarent  autem  aurum,  argentum, 
lapides  pretiosos,  et  de  iitroque  igne  securi  essent:  non  solum  de  illo  a;terno  qui  in  seteraum 

cruciaturus  est  impios,  sed  etiam  de  illo  qui  emendabit  eos  qui  per  ignem  salvi  erunt 

Et  quia  dicitur,  '  salvus  erit,'  contemnitur  ille  ignis Gravinr  tamen  erit  ille  ignis 

quam  quidquid  potest  homo  pati   in  hac  vita."      Enarralio  in  Psahnum  xxxvii.  2,  3; 
Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  418,  d,  419,  a. 


756  PART  IV.  Ch.  L— state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

in  favour  of  those  Christians  who  departed  this  life  not  so  bad  as 
to  be  deemed  unworthy  of  mercy,  nor  so  good  as  to  be  entitled  to 
immediate  happiness.  So,  also,  at  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
there  will  some  be  found  to  whom  mercy  will  be  imparted,  hav- 
ing gone  through  those  pains  to  wliich  the  spirits  of  the  dead  are 
liable.  Otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  said  of  some  with  truth, 
that  their  sin  '  shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in 
the  world  to  come,'  unless  some  sins  were  remitted  in  the  next 
world."  And  again  :  "  If  they  had  built  '  gold  and  silver,  and 
precious  stones,'  they  would  be  secure  from  both  fires  ;  not  only 
from  that  in  which  the  wicked  shall  be  punished  forever,  but  like- 
wise from  that  fire  that  purifies  those  who  shall  be  saved  by  fire. 
But  because  it  is  said  '  shall  be  saved,'  that  fire  is  thought  lightly 
of ;  though  the  suffering  will  be  more  grievous  than  anything  man 
can  und(n-go  in  this  life."  "These  passages,"  says  Cardinal  Wise- 
man, "contain  precisely  the  same  doctrine  as  the  Catholic  Church 
teaches  ;"  they  may  be  found  in  great  abundance  in  all  the  stand- 
ard works  of  Catholic  theologians. 

With  regard  to  this  argument  from  the  fathers,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, (1.)  That  if  any  one  should  quote  DoUinger,  Dupan- 
loup,  Wiseman,  and  Manning  in  favour  of  any  Christian  doctrine, 
it  would  have  more  weight  with  Protestants  than  the  same  num- 
ber of  these  early  writers  ;  not  only  because  they  are,  speaking 
generally,  men  of  far  more  ability  and  higher  culture,  but  because 
they  are  in  more  favourable  circumstances  to  learn  the  truth.  The 
fathers  looked  at  everything  through  an  atmosphere  filled  with 
the  forms  of  pagan  traditions  and  ideas.  The  modern  leaders  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  are  surrounded  by  the  light  of  Protestant 
Christianity.  (2.)  All  the  ancient  writers,  quoted  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  held  doctrines  which  no  Romanist  is 
now  willing  to  avow.  If  they  discard  the  authority  of  the  fathers 
when  teaching  a  Jewish  millennium,  or  sovereign  predestination, 
once  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  Church,  they  cannot  reasonably 
expect  Protestants  to  bow  to  that  authority  when  urged  in  favour 
of  the  pagan  idea  of  a  purification  by  fire.  (3.)  The  witnesses 
cited  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  piirgatory  come  very  far  short 
of  proving  the  imiversal  and  constant  belief  of  the  doctrine  in 
question.  And,  according  to  Romanists  themselves,  no  doctrine 
can  plead  the  support  of  tradition  that  cannot  stand  the  crucial 
test,  "quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omnibus."  (4.)  That 
purgatory  is,  what  Dr.  Pusey  calls  it,  "a  modern  invention,"  lias 
been  demonstrated  by  tracing  historically  its  origin,  rise,  and  de- 
velopment in  the  Church. 


§4.1  DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH    OF   ROME.  757 

Alignments  against  the  Doctrine. 

1.  The  first,  most  obvious,  and,  for  Protestants,  the  most  de- 
cisive argument  against  the  doctrine  is,  that  it  is  not  taught  in 
the  Bible.  Tliis  is  virtually  admitted  by  its  advocates.  The 
most  that  is  pretended  is,  that  having  adopted  the  doctrine  on 
other  grounds,  they  can  find  in  Scripture  here  and  there  a  pas- 
sage which  can  be  explained  in  accordance  with  its  teachings. 
There  is  no  passage  which  asserts  it.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
it  formed  a  part  of  the  instructions  of  Clirist  or  his  Apostles. 

2.  It  is  not  only  destitute  of  all  support  from  Scripture,  but  it 
is  opposed  to  its  clearest  and  most  important  revelations.  If  there 
be  anything  plainly  taught  in  the  Bible,  it  is  that  if  an}''  man  for- 
sakes his  sins,  believes  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  eternal 
Son  of  God,  trusts  simply  and  entirely  to  Him  and  his  work, 
and  leads  a  holy  life,  he  shall  certainly  be  saved.  This  the  doc- 
trine of  purgatory  denies.  It  rests  avowedly  on  the  assumption 
that  notwithstanding  the  infinitely  meritorious  sacrifice  of  Chiist, 
the  sinner  is  bound  to  make  satisfaction  for  his  own  sins.  This 
the  Bible  declares  to  be  impossible.  No  man  does  or  can  per- 
fectly keep  the  commandments  of  God,  much  less  can  he  not 
only  abstain  from  incurring  new  guilt,  but  also  make  atonement 
for  sins  that  are  past. 

The  doctrine  moreover  assumes  the  merit  of  good  works.  Here 
again  it  is  clearer  than  the  sun  that  the  New  Testament  teaches 
that  we  are  saved  by  grace  and  not  by  works  ;  that  to  him  that 
worketh,  the  reward  is  a  matter  of  debt ;  but  to  him  who  simply 
believes,  it  is  a  matter  of  grace  ;  and  that  the  two  are  incompati- 
ible.  What  is  of  grace  is  not  of  works ;  and  what  is  of  works  is 
not  of  grace.  There  is  notliing  more  absolutely  incompatible 
with  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  than  the  idea  that  man  can  "  sat- 
isfy divine  justice"  for  his  sins.  Yet  this  idea  lies  at  the  foun- 
dation of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  If  there  be  no  satisfaction 
of  justice,  on  the  part  of  the  sinuer,  there  is  no  purgatory,  for, 
according  to  Romanists,  purgatory  is  the  place  and  state  in  which 
such  satisfaction  is  rendered.  As  the  renunciation  of  all  depend- 
ence upon  our  own  merit,  of  all  purpose,  desire,  or  effort  to  make 
satisfaction  for  ourselves,  and  trusting  exclusively  to  the  satisfac- 
tion rendered  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  of  the  very  essence  of  Christian 
experience,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  in 
eonflict  not  only  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  but  also  Avith  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  believer.     This  is   not  saying  that 


T58  PART  IV.  Ch.  L  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH 

no  man  wlio  believes  in  ]ourgatoiy  can  be  a  true  Christian.  The 
history  of  the  Church  proves  that  Christians  can  be  very  incon- 
sistent; that  they  may  speculatively  adhere  to  doctrines  which 
are  inconsistent  with  what  their  hearts  know  to  be  true. 

It  is,  however,  not  only  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  but  also  the 
absolutely  preposterous  doctrine  of  supererogation  which  must  be 
admitted,  if  we  adopt  the  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  this 
matter.  The  idea  is  that  a  man  may  be  more  than  perfect ;  that 
he  may  not  only  do  more  than  the  law  requires  of  him,  but  even 
render  satisfaction  to  God's  justice  so  meritorious  as  to  be  more 
than  sufficient  for  the  pardon  of  his  own  sins.  This  superfluous 
merit,  is  the  ground  on  which  the  sins  of  those  suffering  in  pur- 
gatory may  be  forgiven.  This  is  a  subject  which  does  not  ad- 
mit of  argument.  It  supposes  an  impossibility.  It  supposes  that 
a  rational  creature  can  be  better  than  he  ought  to  be  ;  i.  e.,  than 
he  is  bound  to  be.  Romanists  moreover  strenuously  deny  the 
possibility  that  Christ's  righteousness  can  be  imputed  to  the  be- 
liever as  the  ground  of  his  justification  ;  and  yet  they  teach  that 
the  merits  of  the  saints  may  be  imputed  to  sinners  in  purgatory 
as  the  ground  of  their  forgiveness. 

Another  antiscriptural  assumption  involved  in  the  doctrine  is 
that  the  pope,  and  his  subordinates,  have  power  over  the  unseen 
world  ;  power  to  retain  or  to  remit  the  sins  of  departed  souls  ;  to 
deliver  them  from  purgatorial  fire  or  to  allow  them  to  remain  un- 
der its  torments.  This  is  a  power  which  could  not  be  trusted  in 
the  hands  of  an  angel.  Nothing  short  of  infinite  knowledge  and 
infinite  rectitude  could  secure  it  from  fatal  abuse.  No  such 
power  we  may  be  assured  has  ever  been  committed  to  the  hands 
of  sinful  men. 

There  are  two  entirely  different  things  involved  in  this  priestly 
power  to  forgive  sins.  There  are  two  kinds  of  punishment  de- 
nounced against  sin.  The  one  is  the  sentence  of  eternal  death ; 
the  other  is  the  temporary  punishment  to  which  the  sinner  re- 
mains subject  after  the  eternal  penalty  is  remitted.^    With  regard 

1  In  the  passage  quoted  in  part  on  a  preceding  page,  Cardinal  Wiseniart  says:  "No  fast- 
ing, no  prayers,  no  alms-deeds,  no  works  that  we  can  conceive  to  be  done  by  man,  however 
protracted,  iiowever  expensive  or  rigorous  they  may  be,  can,  according  to  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine, have  tlie  most  infinitesimal  weight  for  obtaining  the  remission  of  sin,  or  of  the  eter- 
nal punishment  allotted  to  it.  This  constitutes  the  essence  of  forgiveness,  of  justification, 
and  in  it  we  hold  that  man  has  no  power.  Now,  let  us  come  to  the  remaining  part  of  the 
sacrament  [of  penance].  We  believe  that  upon  this  forgiveness  of  sins,  that  is,  after  the 
remission  of  that  eternal  debt,  which  God  in  his  justice  awards  to  transgressions  against 
his  law,  He  has  been  pleased  to  reserve  a  certain  degree  of  inferior  or  temporary  punish- 
ment appropriate  to  the  guilt  which  had  been  incurred;  and  it  is  on  this  part  of  the  punish- 
ment alone,  that,  according  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  satisfaction  can  be  made  to  God  ' 
Lectures,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 


§4.]  DOCTRINE   OF  THE    CHURCH   OF   ROME.  759 

to  botli  the  priest  interferes.  Neither  can  be  remitted  mthout 
his  intervention.  The  eternal  penalty  is  remitted  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance.  The  latter  is  exacted,  mitigated,  or  dispensed 
with  at  the  discretion  of  the  Church,  or  its  organs.  As  to  the 
remission  of  the  eternal  penalty  the  intervention  of  the  priest  is 
necessary  because  he  alone  can  administer  the  sacrament  of  pen- 
ance, which  includes  contrition,  confession,  and  satisfaction.  All 
ar*e  necessary.  It  is  not  enough  that  the  sinner  be  penitent  in 
heart  and  truly  turn  from  sin  unto  God ;  he  must  confess  his  sins 
to  the  priest.  The  Church  "  maintains  that  the  sinner  is  bound  to 
manifest  his  offences  to  the  pastors  of  his  Church,  or,  rather,  to 
one  deputed  and  authorized  by  the  Church  for  that  purpose  ;  to 
lay  open  to  him  all  the  secret  offences  of  his  soul,  to  expose  all 
its  wounds,  and  in  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  by  our  Blessed 
Saviour  in  him,  to  receive  through  his  hands,  on  earth,  the  sen- 
tence which  is  ratified  in  heaven,  of  God's  forgiveness."  Christ 
also  "  gave  to  the  Church  power  of  retaining  sins,  that  is,  of 
withholding  forgiveness,  or  delaying  it  to  more  seasonable  time."^ 
"  Here  is  a  power,  in  the  first  place,  truly  to  forgive  sin.  For  this 
expression  '  to  forgive  sins,'  in  the  New  Testament,  always  signi- 
fies to  clear  the  sinner  of  guilt  before  God."  "  The  Apostles, 
then,  and  their  successors,  received  this  authority  ;  consequently, 
to  them  was  given  a  power  to  absolve,  or  to  cleanse  the  soul  from 
its  sins.  There  is  another  power  also  :  that  of  retaining  sins. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ?  clearly  the  power  of  refusing  to 
forgive  them.  Now,  all  this  clearly  implies  —  for  the  promise  is 
annexed,  that  what  sins  Christ's  lawful  ministers  retain  on  earth, 
are  retained  in  heaven  —  that  there  is  no  other  means  of  obtain- 
ing forgiveness,  save  through  them.  For  the  forgiveness  of 
heaven  is  made  to  depend  upon  that  which  they  forgive  on  earth ; 
and  tliose  are  not  to  be  pardoned  there,  whose  sins  they  retain."  ^ 
This  is  sufficiently  explicit.  It  is  to  be  remembered  the  power 
of  forgiveness  here  claimed  has  reference,  not  to  the  temporary 
punishment  imposed  in  the  way  of  penance  or  satisfaction,  but  to 
the  remission  of  "  the  eternal  debt."  Now,  as  to  the  temporary 
punishment,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  may  last  thousands  of  years 
and  exceed  in  severity  any  sufferings  on  earth,  Romanists  teach, 
(1.)  That  "  they  are  expiatory  of  past  transgression."  ^  (2.)  That 
they  are  of  the  same  nature  with  the  penances  imposed  by  the 
discipline  of  the  early  Church.  That  discipline  was  naturally, 
perhaps   necessarily,  very  severe  ;    the    Church   was    then    sur- 

1  Wiseman,  Lectures,  vol.  ii.  p.  15.  2  Ibid.  pp.  19,  20.  8  jUd.  p,  39. 


760  PART  IV.  Ch.  I.  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

rounded  by  heathenism,  and  many  of  its  members  were  hea- 
then converts.  What  tendencies,  and  what  temptations  to  un- 
christian conduct,  were  unavoidable  under  such  circumstances, 
may  be  learned  from  the  state  of  the  Church  in  Corinth  as  de- 
picted in  Paul's  epistles.  The  great  danger  was  that  Christians 
should  be  involved,  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  in  the  idol- 
atrous services  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed.  As  the 
worship  of  idols  in  any  form,  was  a  renunciation  of  the  Gospel,  it 
was  against  that  offence  the  discipline  of  the  Church  was  princi- 
pally directed.  One  party  contended  that  the  "•  lapsed  "  ought 
never  to  be  restored  to  Christian  fellowship  ;  another,  which  al- 
lowed their  readmission  to  the  Church,  insisted  that  they  should 
be  restored  only  after  a  long  and  severe  course  of  penance.  Some 
were  required  "to  lay  prostrate  for  a  certain  period  of  months  or 
years  before  the  doors  of  the  Church,  after  which  they  Avere  ad- 
mitted to  different  portions  of  the  divine  service ;  while  others 
were  often  excluded  through  their  whole  lives  from  the  liturgical 
exercises  of  the  faithful,  and  were  not  admitted  to  absolution  until 
they  were  at  the  point  of  death."  These  penances  Romanists  pro- 
nounce "  meritorious  in  the  sight  of  God,"  they  "propitiate  his 
wrath."  This  is  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  ;  and  such  satisfac- 
tion for  sin  is  the  necessary  condition  of  its  forgiveness.  (3.)  As 
these  penances  or  satisfactions  are  imposed  by  the  Church,  they 
can  be  mitigated  or  remitted  by  the  Church.  (4.)  As  the  pains 
of  purgatory  are  of  the  nature  of  satisfactions,  "  expiatory," 
"  meritorious,"  and  "  propitiatory,"  they  are  as  much  under  the 
control  of  the  Church,  as  the  penances  to  be  endured  in  this  life. 
This  is  the  true,  and  it  may  be  said,  the  virtually  admitted 
genesis  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  It 
is  a  perversion  of  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. To  be  sure,  the  genesis,  or  birth,  is  spurious  ;  there  is  no 
legitimate  connection  between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion. 
Admitting  the  fact  that  the  early  Church  imposed  severe  pen- 
ances on  offenders  before  restoring  them  to  fellowship  ;  admitting 
that  this  was  right  on  the  part  of  the  Church  ;  admitting  that 
such  penances  were  of  the  nature  of  satisfactions,  so  far  as  they 
were  designed  to  satisfy  the  Church  that  the  repcntanci>.  of  the 
offender  was  sincere  ;  and  admitting  that  these  penances  being 
matters  of  Churcli  disciphne  were  legitimately  under  the  power 
of  the  Church,  how  does  all  this  prove  that  they  were  "  expiatory 
in  the  sight  of  God,"  that  "  they  satisfied  divine  justice,"  or  that 
they  were  the  necessary  conditions   of    forgiveness  at  his   bar? 


§4.]  DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH    OF   ROME.  761 

Satisfactory  to  the  Cliurcli  as  evidences  of  repentance,  and  satis- 
factory to  God's  justice,  are  two  very  different  things,  which 
Romanists  have  confounded.  Besides,  how  does  it  follow,  be- 
cause the  visible  Church  has  control  of  the  discipline  of  its  mem- 
bers, in  this  life,  that  it  has  control  of  the  souls  of  men  in  the 
life  to  come  ?     Yet  Romanists  reason  from  the  one  to  the  other. 

3.  Another  decisive  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 
is  drawn  from  the  abuses  to  which  it  has  led,  and  which  are  its 
inevitable,  being  its  natural  consequences.  It  is  a  priori  evident 
that  a  power  committed  to  weak  and  sinful  men  which  is  safe  in 
no  other  hands  but  those  of  God  Himself,  must  lead  to  the  most 
dreadful  abuses.  The  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  is,  (1.)  That 
the  priest  has  power  to  remit  or  retain,  the  penalty  of  eternal 
death  denounced  against  all  sin.  (2.)  That  he  (or  the  appro- 
priate organ  of  the  Church)  has  power  to  alleviate,  to  shorten, 
or  to  terminate,  the  sufferings  of  souls  in  purgatory.  That  this 
power  should  fail  to  be  abused,  in  the  hands  of  the  best  of  men, 
is  impossible.  Vested  in  the  hands  of  ordinary  men,  as  must  be 
generally  the  case,  or  in  the  hands  of  mercenary  and  wicked  men, 
imagination  can  set  no  limit  to  its  abuse  ;  and  imagination  can 
hardly  exceed  the  historical  facts  in  the  case.  This  is  not  a  matter 
of  dispute.  Romanists  themselves  admit  the  fact.  Cardinal  Wise- 
man acknowledges  that  "  flagrant  and  too  frequent  abuses,  doubt- 
less, occurred  through  the  avarice,  and  rapacity,  and  impiety 
of  men ;  especially  when  indulgence  was  granted  to  the  contrib- 
utors towards  charitable  or  religious  foundations,  in  the  erection 
of  which  private  motives  too  often  mingle."  ^  The  reader  must 
be  referred  to  the  pages  of  history  for  details  on  this  subject. 
The  evils  which  have  in  fact  flowed  from  this  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory and  of  the  priestly  power  of  retaining  or  remitting  sin,  are 
such  as  to  render  it  certain  that  no  such  doctrine  can  be  of  God. 

4.  Romanists,  however,  confidently  appeal,  in  support  of  their 
doctrine,  to  the  express  declaration  of  Christ,  "  Whose  soever 
sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whose  soever  sins 

•  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  (John  xx.  23.)  To  the  same 
effect  it  is  said,  in  Matthew  xvi.  19,  "I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  The  first  remark  to 
be  made  on  these  passages  is,  that  whatever  power  is  granted  in 
them  to  the  Apostles,  is  granted  in  Matthew  xviii.  18  to  all  Chris- 

1  Lectures,  ut  supra,  xii.;  vol.  ii.  p.  75. 


762  PART  IV.  Ch.  I.  — state  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

tians,  or,  at  least,  to  every  association  of  Christians  which  consti- 
tutes a  Church.  "  If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go 
and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone :  if  he  shall 
hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  Bvit  if  he  will  not  hear 
thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of 
two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  established.  And  if 
he  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church  :  but  if  he  neg- 
lect to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man 
and  a  publican.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind 
on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  This  power,  therefore,  of 
binding  and  loosing,  whatever  it  was,  was  not  vested  exclusively 
in  the  Apostles  and  their  successors,  but  in  the  Church.  Bi;t  the 
true  Church  to  which  the  promises  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church 
belong,  consists  of  true  believers.  This  is  not  only  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  and  of  all  Protestants  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, but  would  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  course.  Promises  made 
-to  the  Apostles  were  made  to  true  apostles,  not  to  those  who 
ipretended  to  the  office,  and  were  false  apostles.  So  the  promises 
imade  to  Christians  are  made  not  to  nominal,  pretended,  or  false 
Christians,  but  to  those  who  truly  are  what  they  profess  to  be. 
If  this  be  clear,  then  it  is  no  less  clear  that  the  power  of  binding 
and  loosing,  of  remitting  or  retaining  sin,  was  never  granted  by 
Christ  to  unregenerated,  mcked  men,  no  matter  by  what  name 
they  may  be  called.  This  is  a  great  point  gained.  The  children 
of  God  in  this  world  are  not  under  the  power  of  the  children  of 
the  devil,  to  be  forgiven  or  condemned,  saved  or  lost,  at  their 
discretion.  Therefore,  when  Luther  was  anathematized  by  the 
body  calling  itself  the  Church,  as  Athanasius  had  been  before 
him,  it  did  not  hurt  a  hair  of  his  head. 

Secondly,  the  power  granted  by  Christ  to  his  Church  of  bind- 
ing and  loosing,  of  forgiving  or  retaining  sin,  is  not  absolute,  but 
conditional.  The  passages  above  quoted  are  analogous  to  many 
others  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  all  to  be  explained  in 
the  same  way.  For  example,  our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples  ; 
They  who  hear  you,  hear  me.  That  is,  the  people  were  as  much 
bound  to  believe  the  gospel  when  preached  by  the  disciples,  as 
though  they  heard  it  from  the  lips  of  Christ  Himself.  Or,  if 
these  words  are  to  be  understood  as  addressed  exclusively  to  the 
Apostles,  and  to  include  a  promise  of  infallibility  in  teaching,  the 
meaning  is  substantially  the  same.  Men  were  as  much  bound  to 
receive  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  as  the  teachings  of  Christ, 


§4.]  DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF   ROME.  763 

for  what  they  taught  He  taught.  St.  John,  therefore,  says,  "  He 
that  knoweth  God  heareth  us ;  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  not 
us."  (1  John  iv.  6.)  Nevertheless,  although  Christ  required 
all  men  to  hear  his  Apostles  as  though  He  himself  were  speaking ; 
yet  no  man  was  bound  to  hear  them  unless  they  preached  Christ's 
gospel.  Therefore  St.  Paul  said,  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  (Gal.  i.  8.)  If  the 
Apostles  taught  auytliing  contrary  to  the  authenticated  revela- 
tion of  God,  they  were  to  be  rejected.  If  they  undertook  to  bind 
or  loose,  to  remit  or  retain  sin  on  any  other  terms  than  those  pre- 
scribed by  Christ,  their  action  amounted  to  nothing ;  it  produced 
no  effect.  In  teaching  and  in  absolution  their  power  was  simply" 
declarative.  In  the  one  case,  they,  as  witnesses,  declared  what 
were  the  conditions  of  salvation  and  the  rule  of  life  prescribed 
in  the  gospel ;  and  in  the  other  case,  they  simply  declared  the 
conditions  on  which  God  will  forgive  sin,  and  announced  the 
promise  of  God  that  on  those  conditions  He  would  pardon  the 
sins  of  men.  A  child,  therefore,  may  remit  sin  just  as  effect- 
ually as  the  pope  ;  for  neither  can  do  anything  more  than  declare 
the  conditions  of  forgiveness.  It  once  required  the  heroism  of 
Luther  to  announce  that  truth  which  emancipated  Europe  ;  now 
it  is  an  e very-day  truth. 

There  is,  of  course,  a  great  difference  between  the  Apostles 
and  other  Christian  teachers.  Christ  bore  witness  to  the  correct- 
ness of  their  testimony  as  to  his  doctrines,  and  sanctioned  their 
declarations,  by  signs,  and  wonders,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
thus  giving  the  seal  of  infallibility  to  their  teachings  as  uttered 
by  the  lips  and  as  we  have  them  recorded  in  the  Bible.  And, 
there  is  also  a  difference  between  the  official  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel and  other  men,  in  so  far  as  the  former  are  specially  called  to 
the  work  of  preaching  the  word.  But  in  all  cases,  in  that  of  the 
Apostles,  in  that  of  office-bearers  in  the  Church,  and  in  that  of 
laymen,  the  power  is  simply  declaratory.  They  declare  what 
God  has  revealed.  What  difference  does  it  make  in  the  author- 
ity of  the  message,  whether  the  gospel  be  read  at  the  bed  of  a 
dying  sinner,  by  a  child,  or  by  an  archbishop  ?  None  in  the 
world. 

There  is  another  class  of  passages  analogous  to  those  under 
consideration.  When  our  Lord  says.  Ask  and  ye  shall  receive, 
Whatsoever  ye  ask  in  my  name  I  will  do  it,  no  one  understands 
these  promises  as  unconditional.    No  one  believes  that  any  prayer 


764     PART  lY.     Cfi    I. —  STATE    OF    SOtJL   AFTER  DEATH. 

of  the  Christian  is  ever  heard,  if  it  be  not  for  somethinsr  a<^reea- 
ble  to  the  will  of  God.  When  then  it  is  said,  "  Whose  soever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted,"  why  should  it  be  inferred  that  no 
condition  is  implied  ?  The  language  is  not  more  explicit  in  the 
one  case  than  in  the  other.  As  no  man's  prayers  are  heard  un- 
less he  asks  for  things  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God  ;  so  no  man's 
sins  are  remitted  unless  he  truly  repents  and  truly  believes  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  One  man  has  no  more  power  to  forgive 
sins,  than  another.  The  forgiveness  of  sin  is  the  exclusive  pre- 
rogative of  God. 

Thirdly,  there  is  another  remark  to  be  made  about  this  power 
of  binding  and  loosing.  Christ  has  ordained  that  the  terms  of 
admission  to  the  Church,  should  be  the  same  as  those  of  admission 
into  heaven ;  and  that  the  grounds  of  exclusion  from  the  Church, 
should  be  the  same  as  those  of  exclusion  from  heaven.  He,  there- 
fore, virtually  said  to  his  disciples,  Whom  ye  receive  into  the 
Church,  I  will  receive  into  heaven  ;  and  whom  ye  exclude  from 
the  Church,  I  will  exclude  from  heaven.  But  this,  of  course, 
implies  that  they  should  act  according  to  his  directions.  He  did 
not  bind  Himself  to  sanction  all  their  errors  in  binding  and  loos- 
ing ;  any  more  than  He  was  bound  by  his  promise  to  hear  their 
prayers,  to  grant  all  the  foolish  or  wicked  petitions  his  people 
might  offer ;  or  by  his  promise  in  reference  to  their  teaching,  to 
sanction  all  the  false  doctrines  into  which  they  might  be  seduced. 
If  we  interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture,  we  escape  a  multitude  of 
errors. 

Fourthly,  Romanists  rest  their  doctrine  of  absolution  and  of 
the  power  of  the  keys  over  souls  in  purgatory,  very  much  upon 
the  special  gifts  granted  to  the  Apostles  and  to  their  successors. 
In  reference  to  this  ag^^ee^ment  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  the  Apostles  never  claimed,  never  possessed,  and 
never  pretended  to  exercise,  the  power  assumed  by  Romanists,  in 
the  remission  of  sins.  They  never  presumed  to  pronounce  the 
absolution  of  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God.  Christ  could  say 
"  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee  ;  "  but  Ave  never  hear  such  language 
from  the  lips  of  an  Apostle.  They  never  directed  those  burdened 
with  a  sense  of  sin  to  go  to  the  priest  to  make  confession  and  re- 
ceive absolution.  They  had  no  authority  in  this  respect  above 
that  which  belongs  to  the  ordinary  officers  of  the  Church.  They 
could  declare  the  terms  on  which  God  had  promised  to  forgive 
Bins  :  and  they  could  suspend  or  excommunicate  members,  for 
cause,  from  the  communion  of  the  visible  Church.     In  the  case 


§4.]  DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH   OF   ROME.  Y65 

of  the  incestuous  man  whom  the  Church  in  Corinth  allowed  to 
remain  in  its  fellowship,  Paul  determined  to  do  what  he  cen- 
sured the  Church  for  not  doing ;  that  is,  in  virtue  of  his  apostolic 
jurisdiction  extending  over  all  the  churches,  he  excommunicated 
the  offender,  or,  delivered  him  to  Satan,  that  he  might  repent. 
(1  Cor.  V.)  When  the  man  did  repent,  the  Apostle  exhorted 
the  Corinthians  to  restore  him  to  their  fellowship,  saying,  "  To 
whom  ye  forgive  anything,  I  forgive  also."  (2  Cor.  ii.  10.) 
He  claimed  for  himself  no  power  which  he  did  not  recognize  as 
belonging  to  them.  It  was  a  mere  matter  of  Church  discipline 
from  beginning  to  end.  This  power  of  discipline,  which  all 
Churches  recognize  and  exercise,  the  Romanists  have  perverted 
into  the  priestly  power  of  absolution. 

2.  Admitting,  what,  however,  is  not  conceded,  that  the  Apos- 
tles had  special  power  to  forgive  sin,  that  power  must  have 
rested  on  their  peculiar  gifts  and  qualifications.  They  were  in- 
fallible men  ;  not  infallible  indeed  in  reading  men's  hearts,  or  in 
judging  of  their  character,  but  simply  infallible  as  teachers ;  aiid 
they  had  authority  to  organize  the  Church,  and  to  lay  down  laws 
for  its  future  government  and  discipline.  These  gifts  and  pre- 
rogatives, indeed,  in  no  way  qualified  them  to  sit  in  judgment 
on  the  souls  of  men,  to  pardon  or  condemn  them  at  discretion  ; 
but,  such  as  they  were,  they  were  personal.  Those  who  claim  to 
be  their  official  successors,  and  arrogate  their  peculiar  preroga- 
tives, do  not  pretend  to  possess  their  gifts  ;  they  do  not  pretend 
to  personal  infallibility  in  teaching,  nor  do  they  claim  jurisdic- 
tion beyond  their  own  dioceses.  As  no  man  can  be  a  prophet 
without  the  gifts  of  a  prophet,  so  no  man  can  be  an  Apostle 
without  the  gifts  of  an  Apostle.  The  office  is  simply  authority 
to  exercise  the  gifts  ;  but  if  the  gifts  are  not  possessed  what  can 
the  office  amount  to  ? 

But  even  if  the  impossible  be  admitted  ;  let  it  be  conceded 
that  the  prelates  have  the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining  sin, 
as  claimed  by  Romanists,  in  virtue  of  their  apostleship,  how  is 
this  power  granted  to  priests  who  are  not  Apostles  ?  It  will  not 
do  to  say  that  they  are  tlie  representatives  and  delegates  of  the 
bishop.  The  bishop  is  said  to  have  this  power  because  he  has 
received  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  this  means  anything,  it  means 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  him,  and  so  enlightens  his  mind 
and  guides  his  judgment,  as  to  render  his  decisions  in  retaining 
or  remitting  sin,  virtually  the  decisions  of  God  ;  but  this  divine 
illumination  and  guidance  can  no  more  be"  delegated  than   the 


766  PART  IV.  Ch.  l  — state  of  soul  after  death. 

knowledge  of  the  lawyer  or  the  skill  of  the  surgeon.  How  can  a 
prophet  delegate  his  power  to  foresee  the  future  to  another  man  ? 
It  is  impossible  to  believe  tliat  God  has  given  men  the  power 
of  forgiving  or  retaining  sin,  unless  He  has  given  them  the  power 
of  infallible  judgment;  and  that  such  infallibility  of  judgment 
belongs  to  the  Romish  priesthood,  no  man  can  believe. 

It  has  already  been  urged  as  valid  arguments  against  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  purgatory,  (1.)  That  it  is  destitute  of  all 
Scriptural  support.  (2.)  That  it  is  opposed  to  many  of  the  most 
clearly  revealed  and  most  important  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
(3.)  That  the  abuses  to  which  it  always  has  led  and  which  are  its 
inevitable  consequences,  prove  that  the  doctrine  cannot  'be  of  God. 
(4.)  That  the  power  to  forgive  sin,  in  the  sense  claimed  by 
Romanists,  and  which  is  taken  for  granted  in  their  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  finds  no  support  in  the  words  of  Christ,  as  recorded  iu 
John  XX,  23,  and  Matt.  xvi.  19,  which  are  relied  on  for  that  pur- 
pose. (5.)  The  fifth  argument  against  the  doctrine  is  derived 
from  its  history,  which  proves  it  to  have  had  a  pagan  origin,  and 
to  have  been  developed  by  slow  degrees  into  the  form  in  which 
it  is  now  held  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 

History  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  details  on  this  subject  must  be  sought  in  the  common 
books  on  the  history  of  doctrine.  Here  only  the  most  meagre 
outline  can  be  expected.  A  full  exposition  on  this  subject  would 
require  first  an  account  of  the  prevalence  of  the  idea  of  a  purifi- 
cation by  fire  among  the  ancients  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
especially  among  the  people  of  central  Asia;  secondly,  an  ac- 
count of  the  early  appearance  of  this  idea  in  the  first  three  cen- 
turies in  the  Christian  Church,  until  it  reached  a  definite  form  in 
the  writings  of  Augustine  ;  and  thirdly,  the  establishment  of  the 
doctrine  as  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Latin  Church,  principally 
through  the  influence  of  Gregory  the  Great. 

Fire  is  the  most  effectual  means  of  purification.  It  is  almost 
the  only  means  by  which  the  dross  can  be  separated  froiix  the 
gold.  In  the  Scriptures  it  is  frequently  referred  to,  in  illustra- 
tion of  the  painful  process  of  the  sanctification  of  the  human  soul. 
In  Zechariah  xiii.  9,  it  is  said,  "  I  will  bring  the  third  part 
through  the  lire,  and  will  refine  them  as  silver  is  refined,  and 
will  try  them  as  gold  is  tried :  they  shall  call  on  ni}--  name,  and 
I  will  hear  them  :  I  will  say,  It  is  my  people ;  and  they  shall 
say,  The  Lord  is  my  God."    It  is  in  allusion  to  the  same  familiar 


§4.]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.      767 

fact,  that  afflictions  are  so  often  compared  to  a  furnace,  and  the 
trials  of  God's  people  are  said  to  be  by  fire.  "  The  fire,"  says 
the  Apostle,  ''shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is." 
With  the  ancient  Persians  fire  was  sacred.  It  became  an  object 
of  worship,  as  the  symbol  of  the  divinity ;  and  elemental  fire  was 
even  for  the  soul  the  great  means  of  purification.  In  the  Zend- 
avesta,  Ormuz  is  made  to  say  to  Zoroaster,  "  Thine  eyes  shall 
certainly  see  all  things  live  anew.  —  For  the  renovated  eartli 
shall  yield  bones  and  water,  blood  and  plants,  hair,  fire  and  life 
as  at  the  beginning.  —  The  souls  will  know  their  bodies.  —  Be- 
hold my  father  !  my  mother !  my  wife  !  Then  will  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  universe  appear  on  earth  with  mankind.  Every  one 
will  see  his  good  or  evil.  Then  a  great  separation  will  occur. 
Everything  corrupt  will  sink  into  the  abyss.  Then  too  through 
the  fierceness  of  the  fire  all  mountains  shall  melt ;  and  through 
the  flowing  stream  of  fire,  all  men  must  pass.  The  good  will  go 
through  as  easily  as  through  flowing  milk.  The  wicked  find  it  real 
fire  ;  but  they  must  pass  through  and  be  purified.  Afterward 
the  whole  earth  shall  be  renewed."  ^ 

With  the  Greek  Stoics  also,  fire  was  the  elementary  principle 
and  soul  of  the  world,  and  they  also  taught  a  renovation  of  the 
world  through  fire.  With  the  Stoics,  "  The  universe  is  one 
whole,  which  comprises  all  things  ;  yet  contains  a  passive  prin- 
ciple, matter,  to  Trdcrxov^  and  an  active  principle,  to  iroiuv  ,  which 
is  reason,  or  God.  The  soul  of  man  is  part  of  this  divine  nature, 
and  will  be  reabsorbed  into  it  and  lose  its  individual  existence. 
The  Deity  in  action,  if  we  may  so  speak,  is  a  certain  active 
aether,  or  fire,  possessed  of  intelligence.  This  first  gave  form 
to  the  original  chaos,  and,  being  an  essential  part  of  the  universe, 
sustains  it  in  order.  The  overruling  power,  which  seems  some- 
times in  idea  to  have  been  separated  from  the  Absolute.  Being, 
was  dfjLapfxiir]^  fate,  or  absolute  necessity.  To  this  the  universe  is 
subject,  both  in  its  material  and  divine  nature.  Men  return  to 
this  life  totally  oblivious  of  the  past,  and  by  the  decrees  of  fate 
are  possessed  of  a  renovated  existence,  but  still  in  imperfection 
and  subject  to  sorrow  as  before."  ^     This  is   an  inchoate  form  of 

1  Kleuker's  Zemlnvestn  im  Kleinem,  2  Thl.  s.  128. 

2  The  Mutual  Influence,  of  Chrhtinnity  and  the  Stoic  School.  By  James  TIenry  Bry- 
mit,  B.  D.,  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  Incumbent  of  Astley,  Warwickshire.  The 
Hulsean  Dissertation  for  the  year  18G5.  London  and  Cambridge,  18GG,  p.  22.  Sir  Alexan- 
der Grant,  in  his  /-Ethics  of  Aristotle,  Essay  vi..  The  Ancient  Stoics  (tirst  an  Oxford  Essay, 
1858),  London,  1866,  vol.  i.  p.  246,  remarks:  "If  we  cast  our  eyes  on  a  list  of  the  early 
Stoics  and  their  native  places,  we  cannot  avoid  noticing  how  many  of  this  school  appear 
to  have  come  of  an  Eastern  and  often  of  a  Semitic  stock."     This  circumstance  in  connec- 


7G8  PART  IV.  Cu.  I. —  STATE  OF  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

the  pantheism  of  the  present  day.  The  system  as  stated  is  not 
self-consistent ;  as  it  says  that  the  souls  of  men  are  to  be  ab- 
sorbed into  the  soul  of  the  world,  and  yet  that  they  are  to  return 
to  this  life,  although  oblivious  to  the  past ;  which  amounts  to 
saying  that  there  will  be  a  new  generation  of  men. 

The  idea  of  a  purification  by  fire  after  death  became  familiar 
to  the  Greek  mind,  and  was  taken  up  by  Plato,  and  wrought  into 
his  philosophy;  he  taught  that  no  one  could  become  perfectly 
happy  after  death,  until  he  had  expiated  his  sins ;  and  that  if 
they  were  too  great  for  expiation,  his  sufferings  would  have  no 
end.^  That  this  doctrine  passed  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews 
may  be  inferred  not  only  from  the  fact  already  mentioned  that 
Judas  Maccabeus  sent  money  to  Jerusalem  to  pay  for  sacrifices  to 
be  offered  for  the  sins  of  the  dead  ;  but  also  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  Rabbins,  that  children,  by  means  of  sin  offerings,  could  alle- 
viate the  sufferings  of  their  deceased  parents.^  Some  of  them 
also  taught  that  all  souls,  not  perfectly  holy,  must  wash  them- 
selves in  the  fire-river  of  Gehenna ;  that  the  just  would  therein 
be  soon  cleansed,  but  the  mcked  retained  in  torment  indefinitely.* 
It  was  in  this  general  form  of  a  purification  by  fire  after  death 
that  the  doctrine  was  adopted  by  some  of  the  fathers.  Nothing 
more  than  this  can  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  the  first  three 
centuries.  Origen  taught  first  that  this  purification  was  to  take 
place  after  the  resurrection.  "  Ego  puto,"  he  says,  "  quod  et  post 
resurrectionem  ex  mortuis  indigeamus  sacramento  eluente  nos  at- 
que  purgante  :  nemo  enim  absque  sordibus  resurgere  poterit :  nee 
ullam  posse  animam  reperiri  qure  universis  statim  vitiis  careat."  * 
And  secondly,  that  in  the  purifying  fire  at  the  end  of  the  world, 
all  souls,  and  all  fallen  angels,  and  Satan  himself,  will  ultimately 
be  purged  from  sin,  and  restored  to  the  favour  of  God.  In  his 
comment  on  Romans  viii.  12,  he  says  :  "  Qui  vero  verbi  Dei  et 
doctrin?e  EvangeliciB  purificationem  spreverit,  tristibus  et  poenali- 
bus  purificationibus  semetipsum  reservat,  ut  ignis  gehennne  in  cruci- 
atibus  purget,  quem  nee  apostolica  doctrina  nee  evangelicus  sermo 
purgavit."  ^    This  doctrine  was  condemned  in  the  Church  ;  but,  as 

tiou  with  affinity  in  doctrine,  goes  to  show  the  eastern  origin  of  the  Stoic  system.  It  in- 
cludes tlie  pantlieism  of  the  Orientals  with  some  of  the  elements  peculiar  to  the  religion  of 
the  Semitic  race  as  we  tind  them  in  the  Bible. 

1  Hoepfner,  De  OrUjine  Dogmatis  de  Purgatorio,   Halle,  1792-98  ;  quoted  byFlugge,  «•* 
supra,  p.  323. 

2  Eisenmenger,  Endechtes  Judenfhum,  ii.  vi.;  Kfinigsberg,  1711,  pp.  357,  358. 
8  Kahbnla  Denudntn,  edit.  Frankfort,  1G84,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  pp.  108,  109,  113. 

♦  Homil.  XV.  in  Luc.   Works,  edit.  Delarue,  Paris,  1740,  vol.  ill.  p.  948,  B,  a. 
»  lUd.  Paris,  1759,  vol.  iv.  p.  640,  B,  b,  c. 


§4.]  DOCnilNE    OF   THE    CHURCH   OF   ROME.  769 

Flijgge  ^  says  :  "This  anathema  was  the  less  effective  because  the 
eastern  views  on  this  subject  differed  so  much  from  the  western 
or  Church  doctrine.  The  former,  or  Origen's  doctrine,  contem- 
plated the  purification  of  the  greatest  sinners  and  of  the  devil 
himself ;  the  Latin  Church  thought  only  of  believers  justified  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  Tlie  one  supposed  the  sinner  to  purify  him- 
self from  his  desire  of  evil ;  the  other,  asserted  expiation  by  suf- 
fering;. Accordino-  to  the  former,  the  sinner  was  healed  and 
strengthened  ;  according  to  the  latter,  divine  justice  must  be  sat- 
isfied." It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this,  that  the  Greek  Church 
adopted  Origen's  views  as  to  "  the  restoration  of  all  things  ;  * 
but  it  nevertheless  maintained  until  a  much  later  period  the  views 
by  which  it  was  distinguished  from  the  Latins  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  future  state. 

It  was,  therefore,  in  the  western  Church  that  the  development 
of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  took  place.  Augustine  first  gave  it 
a  definite  form,  although  his  views  are  not  always  consistently  or 
confidently  expressed.  Thus  he  says :  It  is  doubtful  whether  a 
certain  class  of  men  are  to  be  purified  by  fire  after  death,  so  as  to 
be  prepared  to  enter  heaven  ;  "  utrum  ita  sit,"  he  says,  "  qu;Eri 
potest :  et  ant  inveniri,  aut  latere,  nonnullos  fideles  per  ignem 
quemdam  purgatorium  ;  quanto  magis  minusve  bona  pereuntia 
dilexerunt,  tanto  tardius  citiusque  salvari."  ^  In  other  places, 
however,  he  teaches  the  two  essential  points  in  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  first,  that  the  souls  of  a  certain  class  of  men  who  are 
ultimately  saved,  suffer  after  death ;  and  secondly,  that  they  are 
aided  through  the  eucharist,  and  the  alms  and  prayers  of  the 
faithful.3 

It  was,  however,  Gregory  the  Great  who  consolidated  the 
vague  and  conflicting  views  circulating  through  the  Church,  and 
brought  the  doctrine  into  such  a  shape  and  into  such  connection 
with  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  as  to  render  it  the  effective 
engine  for  government  and  income,  which  it  has  ever  since  re- 
mained. From  this  time  onward  through  all  the  Middle  Ages, 
purgatory  became  one  of  the  prominent  and  constantly  reiterated 
topics  of  public  instruction.  It  took  firm  hold  of  the  popular 
mind.  The  clergy  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  and  the  differ- 
ent orders  of  monks  vied  with  each  other  in  their  zeal  in  its  incul- 
cation ;  and  in  the  marvels  which  they  related  of  spiritual  appa- 

1   Ut  supra,  p.  327. 

^  Enchiridion  du  Fide,  Spe  et  Chnritate,  69;    TVorls,  Paris,  1837,  vol.  vi.  p.  382,  b. 
8  De  Ciritnfe  Dei,  xxi.  xiii. ;  Ibid.  vol.  vii.  p.  1015,  d.    Enchiridion  de  Fide,  Spe  et 
Charitate,  110;  Ibid.  vol.  vi.  p.  403,  b,  c. 

VOL.  III. 


770     TART   IV.     Cn.   I.  —  STATE   OF    SOUL   AFTER   DEATH. 

ritions,  in  support  of  the  doctrine.  They  contended  fiercely  for 
the  honour  of  superior  power  of  redeeming  souls  from  purgatorial 
pains.  The  Franciscans  claimed  that  the  head  of  their  order 
descended  annually  into  purgatory,  and  delivered  all  the  brother- 
hood who  were  there  detained.  The  Carmelites  asserted  that  the 
Virgin  Mary  had  promised  that  no  one  who  died  with  the  Car- 
melite scapulary  upon  their  shoulders,  should  ever  be  lost.^  The 
chisel  and  pencil  of  the  artist  were  employed  in  depicting  the 
horrors  of  purgatory,  as  a  means  of  impressing  the  public  mind. 
No  class  escaped  the  contagion  of  belief  ;  the  learned  as  well  as 
the  ignorant ;  the  high  and  the  low  ;  the  soldier  and  the  recluse  ; 
the  skeptic  and  the  believer  were  alike  enslaved.^  From  this 
slavery  the  Bible,  not  the  progress  of  science,  has  delivered  all 
Protestants. 

1  Mosheim,  Eistoria  Ecclesice,  Sseculum  xiii.  pars  ii.  2,  §  29 ;  edit.  Helmstadt,  1764,  p. 
454. 

2  All  experience  proves  that  infidelity  is  no  protection  attainst  superstition.  If  men  will 
not  believe  the  rational  and  true,  they  will  believe  the  absurd  and  the  false.  When  the 
writer  was  returning  from  Europe,  he  had  as  a  fellow  passenger  a  distinguished  French  di- 
plomatist. One  evening  when  admiring  the  moon  shining  in  its  brightness,  that  gentleman 
adverted  to  the  idea  of  creation,  and  pronounced  it  absurd,  avowing  himself  an  atheist. 
But  he  addid  immediately,  "Don't  misunderstand  me.  I  am  a  good  Catholic,  and  mean 
to  die  in  tl  ^i  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church.  You  Protestants  are  all  wrong.  You  tell  every 
man  to  th  nk  for  himself.  Ho!  then  I'll  think  what  I  please.  I  want  a  religion  which 
tells  me  ''  jha'n't  think;  only  submit.  Well!  I  mean  to  sub.iiit,  and  be  buried  in  conse- 
crated p^  uid." 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   RESURRECTION. 

§  1.   The  Scriptural  Doctrine. 

By  the  resurrection  is  not  meant  the  continued  existence  of  the 
soul  after  death.  The  fact  that  the  Sadducees  in  the  time  of 
Christ,  against  whom  most  of  the  arguments  found  in  the  New 
Testament  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  were  di- 
rected, denied  not  only  that  doctrine,  but  also  that  of  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  soul  after  death,  sufficiently  accounts  for 
the  sacred  writings  combining  the  two  subjects.  Thus  our  Lord, 
in  reasoning  with  the  Sadducees,  said  :  "  As  touching  the  dead, 
that  they  rise ;  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in 
the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ?  He  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the  living."  (Mark  xii.  26.) 
All  that  this  passage  directly  proves  is  that  the  dead  continue 
alive  after  the  dissolution  of  tlie  bod3^  But  as  this  is  Christ's 
answer  to  a  question  concerning  the  resurrection,  it  has  been  m- 
ferred  that  the  resurrection  means  nothing  more  than  that  the 
soul  does  not  die  with  the  body,  but  rises  to  a  new  and  higher 
life.  Thus  also  the  Apostle  in  the  elaborate  argument  contained 
in  1  Corinthians  xv.  evidently  regards  the  denial  of  the  resurrec- 
tion as  tantamount  with  the  denial  of  the  future  life  of  the  soul. 
Hence  many  maintain  that  the  only  resurrection  of  which  the 
Bible  speaks  is  the  resurrection  of  the  soul  when  the  body  dies. 
The  first  position,  therefore,  to  be  defended,  in  stating  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  on  this  subject  is,  that  our  bodies  are  the  subjects 
of  the  resurrection  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  Bodies  of  Men  are  to  rise  again. 

This  is  denied,  first,  by  those  who  take  the  word  resurrection 
in  a  figurative  sense,  expressing  the  rising  of  the  soul  from  spirit- 
ual death  to  spiritual  life.  At  the  grave  of  Lazarus  Martha  said 
to  our  Lord,  "  I  know  that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection 
at  the  last  day."     To  which  our  Lord,  according  to  Mr.  Alger, 


772  PART  IV.     Cn.  II.  — THE   RESURRECTION. 

replies  substantially,  "  You  suppose  that  in  tlie  last  day  the  Mes- 
siah will  restore  the  dead  to  live  again  upon  the  earth.  I  am  the 
]\Iessiah,  and  the  last  days  have  therefore  ai'rived.  I  am  commis- 
sioned by  the  Father  to  bestow  eternal  life  upon  all  who  believe 
on  me ;  but  not  in  the  manner  you  have  anticipated.  The  true 
resurrection  is  not  calling  the  body  from  the  tomb,  but  opening 
the  fountains  of  eternal  life  in  the  soul.  I  am  come  to  open  the 
sjDiritual  world  to  your  faith.  He  that  believeth  in  me  and  keep- 
eth  my  commandments,  has  passed  from  death  unto  life  —  become 
conscious  that  though  seemingl}^  he  passes  into  the  grave,  yet 
really  he  shall  live  with  God  forever.  The  true  resurrection  is, 
to  come  into  the  experience  of  the  truth  that,  '  God  is  not  the 
God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living  ;  for  all  live  unto  Him.'  Over 
the  soul  that  is  filled  with  such  an  experience,  death  has  no 
power.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is, 
when  the  dead,  the  ignorant  and  guilty,  buried  in  trespasses  and 
sins,  shall  lay  hold  of  the  life  thus  offered,  and  be  blessed."  ^ 

Secondly,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  denied  by  those  who, 
with  the  Swedenborgians,  hold  that  man,  in  this  life,  has  two 
bodies,  an  external  and  internal,  a  material  and  psychical.^  The 
former  dies  and  is  deposited  in  the  grave,  and  there  remains  never 
to  rise  again.  The  other  does  not  die,  but  in  union  vnth  the  soul 
passes  into  another  state  of  existence.  The  only  resurrection, 
therefore,  which  is  ever  to  occur,  takes  place  at  the  moment  of 
death. 

Thirdly,  it  is  denied  by  those  who  assume  that  the  soul  as  pure 
spirit,  cannot  be  individualized  or  localized  ;  that  it  cannot  have 
any  relation  to  space,  or  act  or  be  acted  upon,  without  a  corpo- 
reity of  some  kind  ;  and  who,  therefore,  assume  that  it  must  be 
furnished  with  a  new,  more  refined,  ethereal  bod}^  as  soon  as  its 
earthly  tabernacle  is  laid  aside.  The  resurrection  body  is  ac- 
cording to  this  view  also  furnished  at  the  moment  of  death. 

That  the  Scriptures,  however,  teach  a  literal  resurrection  of 
the  body  is  proved,  (1.)  From  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Resur- 
rection sij^nifies  a  risinc:  ajrain  ;  a  risino;  of  that  which  was  buried  ; 
or  a  restoration  of  life  to  that  which  M'as  dead.  But  the  soul, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  docs  not  die  when  the  body  is  dis- 
solved.    It,  therefore,  cannot   be    the  subject  of  a  resurrection, 

i  Alger,  ut  supra,  p.  324. 

2  Bonnet,  Pallnt/cni'aie  Philosophiquf .  Essai  AnaJijt'ique  sur  I'Ame,  chap,  xxiv.,  part 
xxii.,  Neufohatel,  1783,  vol.  xiv.  p.  205  ff.,  especially  p.  230  fe.,  and  vol.  xvi.  p.  481  ff. 
Lange,  Beitraye  zu  der  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dhif/en,  Meurs,  1841.  Lange's  doctrine, 
however,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  is  not  that  of  Swedeuborg. 


§!•] 


SCRIPTURAL   DOCTRINE.  773 


except  in  the  sense  antithetical  to  spiritual  death,  which  is  not 
now  in  question.  The  same  is  true  of  the  psychical  body,  if  tliere 
be  such  a  thing.  It  does  not  die,  and,  therefore,  cannot  rise 
again.  The  same  may  also  be  said  of  a  new  body  furnished  the 
soul  when  its  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  is  dissolved. 

(2.)  Those  who  are  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  ;  those  "  that  are 
in  the  graves  "  are  said  to  rise.  But  it  is  only  of  the  body  that  it 
can  be  said,  it  is  in  the  grave  ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  of  the  body 
the  resurrection  spoken  of,  must  be  understood. 

(3.)  It  is  "our  mortal  bodies"  which  are  to  rise  again.  This 
form  of  expression  is  decisive  of  the  Apostle's  meaning.  "  He 
that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal 
bodies,  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you."  (Rom.  viii.  11.)  It 
is  "  our  vile  body  "  which  is  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  Christ's 
glorious  body.     (Phil.  iii.  21.) 

(4.)  This  also  is  clearly  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  There  were  certain  errorists  in 
Corinth  who  denied  the  fact  and  the  desirableness  of  the  resur- 
rection of  believers.  Paul's  argument  is  directed  to  both  those 
points.  As  to  the  fact  that  the  dead  can  rise,  he  refers  to  what 
no  Christian  could  deny,  the  rising  of  Christ  from  the  dead. 
This,  as  a  historical  fact,  he  supports  by  historical  evidence.  He 
then  shows  that  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  the 
denial  of  the  whole  Gospel,  which  rests  on  that  fact.  "  If  Christ 
be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also 
vain."  But  if  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  all  his  people  must. 
Christ  rose  as  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  sleep.  There  is  in 
Paul's  view,  the  same  divinely  appointed,  and  therefore  necessary 
connection  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  that  of  his 
people,  as  between  the  death  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  descend- 
ants. As  surely  as  all  in  Adam  die,  so  surely  shall  all  in  Christ 
be  made  ahve.  And  finally,  on  this  point,  the  Apostle  conde- 
scends to  argue  from  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church.  What 
is  the  use,  he  asks,  of  being  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead 
rise  not  ?  The  whole  daily  life  of  the  Christian  is  founded,  he 
says,  on  the  hope  of  the  resurrection  ;  not  of  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  the  soul  merely,  but  of  the  glorious  existence  of  the  whole 
man,  soul  and  body,  with  Christ  in  heaven.  As  to  the  second 
point,  the  desirableness  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  he  shows 
that  all  objections  on  this  score  are  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  the  future  is  to  be  like  the  present  body.  He  says  that 
the  man  who  makes  that  objection  is  a  fool.     The  two  are  no 


774  PART  IV.   Ch.  n.  — the  resurrection. 

more  alike  than  a  seed  and  a  flower,  a  clod  of  earth  and  a  star, 
the  eartlily  and  the  heavenly.  "  It  [the  body  of  course]  is  sown 
in  corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorriiption  :  it  is  sown  in  dislionour, 
it  is  raised  in  glory :  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power  : 
it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  This 
whole  discourse,  thei-efore,  is  about  the  body.  To  the  objection 
that  our  present  bodies  are  not  adapted  to  our  future  state  of  ex- 
istence, he  answers,  Granted  ;  it  is  true  that  flesh  and  blood 
cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  this  corruptible  must  put 
on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.  It 
would  seem  that  the  Apostle  in  this  chapter  must  have  had  in 
his  eye  a  host  of  writers  in  our  day  who  make  themselves  merry 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  on  much  the  same  grounds 
as  those  relied  upon  by  the  errorists  of  Corinth,  whose  fragments 
he  scattered  to  the  winds  eighteen  centuries  ago. 

(5.)  Another  argument  on  this  subject  is  drawn  from  the  anal- 
ogy constantly  presented,  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and 
that  of  his  people.  The  sacred  writers,  as  we  have  seen,  argue  the 
possibility  and  the  certainty  of  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies,  from 
the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  ;  and  the  nature  of  our  future 
bodies  from  the  nature  of  his  body  in  heaven.  There  would  be 
no  force  in  this  argument  if  the  body  were  not  tlie  thing  which  is 
to  rise  again. 

(6.)  Finally,  as  Paul  argued  from  the  faith  of  the  Church,  we 
cannot  err  in  following  his  example.  The  Bible  is  a  plain  book, 
and  the  whole  Christian  world,  in  all  ages,  has  understood  it  to 
teach,  not  this  or  that,  but  the  literal  rising  from  the  dead  of  the 
body  deposited  in  the  grave.  All  Christians  of  every  denomina- 
tion are  taught  to  say,  I  believe  in  "  The  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  The 
resurrection  of  the  body  ;  And  the  life  everlasting." 

The  Identity/  of  the  Future  with  our  Present  Body. 

There  are  two  distinct  questions  to  be  here  considered.  First, 
Do  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  resurrection  body  is  to  be  the 
same  as  that  deposited  in  the  grave  ?  Second,  Wherein,  does 
that  sameness  or  identity  consist  ?  Tlie  first  of  these  questions 
we  may  be  able  to  answer  with  confidence  ;  the  second  we  may 
not  be  able  to  answer  at  all. 

The  arguments  to  prove  that  we  are  hereafter  to  have  the  same 
bodies  that  we  have  in  the  present  life,  are  substantially  the  same 
as  those  already  adduced.  Indeed,  identity  is  involved  in  the  very 
idea  of  a  resurrection  ;  for  resurrection  is  a  living  again  of  thai 


§  1.]  SCRIPTURAL   DOCTRINE.  775 

which  was  dead  ;  not  of  something  of  the  same  nature,  but  of  the 
very  thing  itself.  And  all  the  passages  already  quoted  as  prov- 
ing the  resurrection  of  the  body,  assume  or  declare  that  it  is  the 
same  body  that  rises.  It  is  ovir  present  "  mortal  bodies  ;"  "  our 
vile  body  ;  "  it  is  "  this  corruptible,"  "  this  mortal ;  "  it  is  that 
which  is  sown,  of  which  the  resurrection  and  transformation  is  pre- 
dicted and  promised.'  Our  resurrection  is  to  be  analogous  to  that 
of  Christ ;  but  in  his  case  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  very 
body  which  hung  upon  the  cross,  and  which  laid  in  the  tomb,  rose 
again  from  the  dead.  Otherwise  it  would  have  been  no  resurrec- 
tion. This  identity  was  the  very  thing  Christ  was  anxious  to 
prove  to  his  doubting  disciples.  He  showed  them  his  pierced 
hands  and  feet,  and  his  perforated  side.  On  this  subject,  how- 
ever, there  is  little  difference  of  opinion.  Wherever  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  is  an  article  of  faith  the  identity  of  the  present 
and  future  body  has  been  admitted.  The  usual  form  of  Christian 
burial,  in  the  case  of  the  faithful,  has  ever  been,  "  We  commit 
this  body  to  the  grave  in  the  sure  hope  of  a  blessed  resurrection." 

Wherein  does  this  Identity  consist? 

It  is  obvious  that  identity  in  different  cases  depends  on  very 
different  conditions.  First,  in  the  case  of  unorganized  mjitter,  as 
a  clod  of  earth  or  a  stone,  the  identity  depends  on  the  continuity 
of  substance  and  of  form.  If  the  stone  be  reduced  to  powder  and 
scattered  abroad,  the  same  substance  continues,  but  not  in  the  same 
combination  ;  and  therefore  the  identity  is  gone.  In  what  sense 
is  water  in  a  goblet  the  same  from  hour  to  hour,  or  from  day  to 
day  ?  It  is  the  same  substance  resulting  from  the  combination  of 
oxygen  and  hydrogen,  and  it  is  the  same  portion  of  that  substance. 
If  that  goblet  be  emptied  into  the  ocean,  what  becomes  of  the 
identity  of  the  water  which  it  contained  ?  If  you  separate  the 
water  into  its  constituent  gases,  the  elementary  substances  con- 
tinue, but  they  are  no  longer  water.  You  may  change  its  state 
without  destroying  its  identity.  If  frozen  into  ice  and  again 
thawed,  it  is  the  same  water.  If  evaporated  into  steam,  and  then 
condensed,  it  is  the  same  water  still.  This  sameness,  of  which 
continuance  of  the  same  substance  is  the  essential  element,  is  the 
lowest  form  of  identity.  In  the  Church  it  has  often  been  assumed 
that  sameness  of  substance  is  essential  to  the  identity  between  our 
present  and  future  bodies.  This  idea  has  been  pressed  sometimes 
to  the  utmost  extreme.  Augustine  seems  to  have  thought  that 
all  the  matter  which  at  any  period  entered  into  the  organism  of 


776  PART   IV.     Ch.   it. —  the   RESURRECTION. 

our  present  bodies,  would  in  some  way  be  restored  in  the  resur- 
rection body.  Every  man's  body,  however  dispersed  here,  shall 
be  restored  perfect  in  the  resurrection.  Every  body  shall  be  com- 
plete in  quantity  and  quality.  As  many  hairs  as  have  been 
shaved  off,  or  nails  cut,  shall  not  return  in  such  vast  quantities  as 
to  deform  their  original  places  ;  but  neither  shall  they  perish  ; 
they  shall  return  into  the  body  into  that  substance  from  which 
they  grew.^  Thomas  Aquinas  was  more  moderate.  He  tauglit 
that  only  those  particles  which  entered  into  the  composition  of  the 
body  at  death,  would  enter  into  the  composition  of  the  resurrec- 
tion body.  This  idea  seems  to  have  entered  into  the  theology  of 
Romanists,  as  some  at  least  of  the  theologians  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  labour  to  remove  the  objection  to  this  view  of  the  subject 
derived  from  the  fact  that  the  particles  of  the  human  body  after 
death  are  not  only  dispersed  far  and  wide  and  mingled  with  the 
dust  of  the  earth,  but  also  enter  into  the  composition  of  the 
bodies  of  plants,  of  animals,  and  of  men.  To  this  Perrone  an- 
swers, "  Difficile  Deo  non  est  moleculas  omnes  ad  corpus  aliquod 
spectantes,  etiam  post  innumeros  transitus  ex  uno  in  aliud  colli- 
gere.,  Hjbc  mutatio  sen  transitus  accidentalis  est,  minime  vere  es- 
sentialis,  ut  ex  physiologia  ac  zoobiologia  constat  universa."  ^  It 
is  true,  as  our  Lord  teaches  us  :  "  With  God  all  things  are  pos- 
sible ;  "  and  if  sameness  of  substance  be  essential  to  that  identity 
between  our  present  and  future  bodies,  which  the  Bible  asserts, 
then  we  should  have  to  submit  to  these  difficulties,  satisfied  that 
it  is  mthin  the  power  of  omniscient  omnipotence  to  do  Avhatever 
God  has  promised  to  effect. 

Others  assume  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  identitj?- contended 
for  that  all  the  particles  of  the  body  at  death  should  be  included 
in  the  resurrection  body.  It  is  enough  that  the  new  body  should 
be  formed  exclusively  out  of  particles  belonging  to  the  present 
body.  But  as  the  body  after  the  resurrection  is  to  be  refined  and 
ethereal,  a  tenth,  a  hundredth,  or  a  ten  thousandth  portion  of 
those  particles  would  suffice.  It  would  take  very  little  of  gross 
matter  to  make  a  body  of  light.  TertuUian  thought  that  God 
had  rendered  the  teeth  indestructible  in  order  to  furnish  material 
for  the  future  body.  Many  others  also  suppose  that  there  is  some- 
where an  indesti-uctible  germ  in  our  present  body,  which  is  to  be 
developed  into  the  body  of  the  future." 

1  De  Civitate  Del,  x.xii.,  xix.,  xx.;    Woi-Jcf,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  vii.  pp.  1085-1089. 

2  Prcelectioni'.f,  edit.  Paris,  18fil,  vol.  i.  p.  503. 

«  See  Essaij  on  the  Identity  and  Genentl  Resurrection  of  the  Human  Body,  by  Samuel 
Drew,  chapter  vi.  section  7,  Brooklyn,  1811,  p.  315  ff. 


§  1.]  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE.  777 

Secondly,  In  works  of  art  sameness  of  substance  holds  a  very 
subordinate  part.  The  Apollo  Belvidere  once  lay  dormant  in  a 
block  of  marble.  The  central  portion  of  that  block  containing 
every  particle  of  matter  in  the  statue  was  not  the  Apollo  of  the 
artist.  Could  every  particle  clipped  off,  be  restored,  the  substance 
would  remain,  but  the  statue  would  be  gone.  Here  form,  expres- 
sion, the  informing  idea  are  the  main  constituents  of  identity.  If 
a  penitentiary  should  be  taken  down,  and  the  materials  be  em- 
ployed in  the  construction  of  a  cathedral,  the  substance  would  be 
tJie  same,  but  not  the  building.  When  you  look  into  a  mirror  the 
image  reflected  remains  the  same,  but  not  the  substance ;  for  that 
is  changed  with  every  new  reflection.  And  if  it  were  possible,  or 
proved,  that  in  like  manner  the  Madonna  del  Sixti  of  Raphael  had 
a  thousand  times  changed  its  substance,  it  would  remain  the  same 
picture  still.  The  soul  here  informs  the  body.  The  character  is 
more  or  less  visibly  impressed  upon  the  face.  AVe  know  the  for- 
mer by  looking  at  the  latter.  If  this  be  so,  if  the  soul  have  power 
thus  to  illuminate  and  render  intelligent  the  gross  material  of  our 
present  frames,  why  may  it  not  hereafter  render  its  ethereal  vest- 
ment so  expressive  of  itself  as  to  be  at  once  recognized  by  all  to 
whom  it  was  ever  known.  Tlius  we  may  at  once  recognize  Isaiah, 
Paul,  and  John.  It  is  not  said  that  this  will  be  so  ;  that  herein 
lies  the  identity  of  their  heavenly  and  earthly  bodies ;  but  should 
it  prove  to  be  true,  we  should  not  stop  to  inquire  or  to  care  how 
many  particles  of  the  one  enter  into  the  composition  of  the  other. 

Thirdly,  identity  in  living  organisms  is  something  still  higher, 
and  more  inscrutable  than  in  works  of  art.  The  acorn  and  the 
oak  are  the  same  ;  but  in  what  sense  ?  Not  in  substance,  not  in 
form.  The  infant  and  the  man  are  the  same,  through  all  the 
stages  of  life  ;  boyhood,  manhood,  and  old  age  ;  the  substance  of 
the  body,  however,  is  in  a  state  of  perpetual  change.  It  is  said 
this  change  is  complete  once  every  seven  years.  Hence  if  a  man 
live  to  be  seventy  years  old,  the  substance  of  his  body  has,  during 
that  period,  been  entirely  changed  ten  times.  Here,  then,  is  an 
identity  independent  of  sameness  of  substance.  Our  future  bodies, 
therefore,  may  be  the  same  as  those  we  now  have,  although  not  a 
particle  that  was  in  the  one  should  be  in  the  other. 

The  object  of  these  remarks  on  the  different  kinds  of  identit}, 
is  not  to  explain  anything.  It  is  not  intended  to  teach  wherein 
the  identity  of  the  earthly  and  heavenly  consists  ;  whether  it 
be  an  identity  of  substance ;  or  of  expression  and  idea,  as  in 
works  of  art ;  or  of  the  uninterrupted  continuity  of  the  same  vital 


778  PART  IV.   Ch.  n.  — the  resurrection. 

force  as  in  tlie  plant  and  animal  through  their  whole  progress  of 
growth  and  decay  ;  or  whether  it  is  a  sameness  which  includes  all 
these  ;  or  something  different  from  them  all.  Nothing  i.s  affirmed. 
The  subject  is  left  where  the  Bible  leaves  it.  The  object  aimed 
at  is  twofold  ;  first,  to  show  tha<  it  is  perfectly  rational  for  a  man 
to  assert  the  identity  between  our  present  and  our  future  bodies, 
although  he  is  forced  to  admit  that  he  does  not  know  wherein  that 
identity  is  to  consist.  This  is  no  more  than  what  all  men  have 
to  admit  concerning  the  continued  sameness  of  our  present  bodies. 
And,  secondly,  to  stop  the  mouths  of  gainsayers.  They  ridicule 
the  idea  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body ;  asking  if  the  infant  is  to 
rise  as  an  infant ;  the  old  man,  wrinkled  and  deerepid ;  the 
maimed  as  maimed ;  the  obese  with  their  cumbrous  load  ;  and  by 
such  questions  think  they  have  refuted  a  Scripture  doctrine.  The 
Bible  teaches  no  such  absurdities  ;  and  no  Church  goes  beyond  the 
Scriptures  in  asserting  two  things,  namely  :  that  the  body  is  to 
rise,  and  that  it  is  to  be  the  same  after  the  resurrection  that  it  was 
before ;  but  neither  the  Bible  nor  the  Church  determines  wherein 
that  sameness  is  to  consist. 

With  regard  to  our  present  bodies,  the  fact  of  their  continued 
identity  is  not  denied.  According  to  one  view  the  principle  of 
this  identity  is  in  the  body  and  perishes,  or,  ceases,  with  it.  Ac- 
cording to  another,  although  in  the  body,  it  does  not  perish  with 
it,  but  remains  united  to  the  soul,  and  under  appropriate  circum- 
stances fashions  for  itself  a  new  body.  According  to  others,  this 
vital  principle  is  in  the  soul  itself.  Agassiz,  as  a  zoologist,  teaches 
that  with  every  living  germ  there  is  an  immaterial  principle  by 
which  one  species  is  distinguished  from  another,  and  which  deter- 
mines that  the  germ  of  a  fish  develops  into  a  fish ;  and  tliat  of  a 
bird,  into  a  bird,  although  the  two  germs  are  exactly  the  same  (i. 
e.,  alike)  in  substance  and  structure.  When  the  individual  dies, 
this  immaterial  principle  ceases  to  exist.  This  is  Agassiz's  doc- 
trine. Dr.  Julius  Miiller^  thinks  that  this  vital  organizing  force 
continues  in  union  with  the  soul,  but  is  not  operative  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.  He  says,  "it  is  not  the  crnp'^j,  the 
mass  of  earthly  material,  ....  but  the  crwfia,  the  organic  whole, 
to  which  the  Scriptures  promise  a  resurrection The  organ- 
ism, as  the  living  form  which  appropriates  matter  to  itself,  is  the 
true  body,  Avhich  in  its  glorification  becomes  the  a-wna  Tncv/^ariKor." 
But  he  understands  the  Apostle  in  2  Corinthians  v.  4,  as  clearly 
teaching  that  the  soul  during  the  interval  between  death  and  the 

1  Studien  unci  Kritiken,  1835,  pp.  777,  785 


§  1.]  SCRIPTURAL   DOCTRINE.  779 

resurrection  remains  unclothed.  Dr.  Lange,  whose  imagination 
often  dominates  him,  teaches  that  the  soul  was  created  to  be  in- 
carnate ;  and  therefore  was  endowed  with  forces  and  talents  to 
that  end.  In  virtue  of  its  nature,  it  as  certainly  gathers  from  sur- 
rounding matter  the  materials  for  a  body,  as  a  seed  gathers  from 
the  earth  and  air  the  matter  suited  to  its  necessities.  He  assumes, 
therefore,  that  there  is  in  the  soul  "  a  law  or  force,  which  secures 
its  forming  for  itself  a  body  suited  to  its  necessities  and  sphere ; 
or  more  properly,"  he  adds,  "  the  organic  identity  "  may  be  char- 
acterized as  the  "  Schema  des  Leibes,"  which  is  included  in  the 
soul,  or,  as  the  "  Incarnationstrieb  des  Geistes  ;  "  a  "  nisus  forma- 
tivus  "  which  belongs  to  the  human  soul.^  The  soul  while  on 
earth  forms  for  itself  a  body  out  of  earthly  materials ;  when  it 
leaves  the  earth  it  fashions  a  habitation  for  itself  out  of  the  mate- 
rials to  be  found  in  the  higher  sphere  to  which  it  is  translated ; 
and  at  the  end  of  the  world,  when  the  grand  palingenesia  is  to 
occur,  the  souls  of  men,  according  to  their  nature,  will  fashion 
bodies  for  themselves  out  of  the  elements  of  the  dissolving  uni- 
verse. "  The  righteous  will  clothe  themselves  with  the  refined 
elements  of  the  renovated  earth ;  tliey  shall  shine  as  the  sun. 
The  -vyicked  shall  be  clothed  with  the  refuse  of  the  earth ;  they 
shall  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."^ 

Leaving  out  of  view  what  is  fanciful  in  this  representation,  it 
may  be  readily  admitted  by  those  who  adliere  to  the  generally 
received  doctrine  that  man  consists  of  soul  and  body  (and  not 
of  spirit,  soul,  and  body),  that  the  soul,  besides  its  rational,  vol- 
untary, and  moral  faculties,  has  in  it  what  may  be  called  a  prin- 
ciple of  animal  life.  That  is,  that  it  has  not  only  faculties  which 
fit  it  for  the  higher  exercises  of  a  rational  creature  capable  of 
fellowship  with  God,  but  also  faculties  which  fit  it  for  hving 
in  organic  union  with  a  material  body.  It  may  also  be  admitted 
that  the  soul,  in  this  aspect,  is  the  animating  principle  of  the 
bod}^,  that  by  which  all  its  functions  are  carried  on.  And  it  may 
further  be  admitted  that  the  soul,  in  this  aspect,  is  that  which 
gives  identity  to  the  human  body  through  all  the  changes  of  sub- 
stance to  which  it  is  here  subjected.  And  finally  it  may  be  ad- 
mitted, such  being  the  case,  that  the  body  which  the  soul  is  to 
have  at  the  resurrection,  is  as  really  and  truly  identical  with  that 
which  it  had  on  earth,  as  the  body  of  the  man  of  mature  life  ia 
the  same  which  he  had  when  he  was  an  infant.  All  this  may 
pass  for  what  it  is  worth.     What  stands  sure  is  what  the  Bible 

1  Beitrdgt  zu  der  Lehre  von  den  Letzten  Dingtn,  Meiirs,  1841,  p.  235.      2  /Jjj.  p.  251. 


780  PART   IV.     Cn.   n.  —  THE   RESURRECTION. 

teaches,  that  our  heavenly  bodies  are  in  some  high,  true,  and  real 
sense,  to  be  the  same  as  those  which  we  now  have. 

Nature    of  the    Resurrection   Body. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  is  a  subject  of  which  we  can  know  noth- 
ing, except  from  divine  reveLxtion.  We  are  of  necessity  as  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  this  matter,  as  of  the  nature  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  planets  or  of  the  sun.  The  speculations  of  men 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  futvire  body  have  been  numerous  ; 
some  merely  fanciful,  others,  revolting. 

There  are  two  negative  statements  in  the  Bible  on  this  subject, 
which  imply  a  great  deal.  One  is  the  declaration  of  Christ, 
That  in  the  resurrection  men  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage,  but  are  as  the  angels  of  God.  The  other  is  the  words 
of  Paul  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  50,  "  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God."  There  seem  to  be  plainly  three  things 
implied  or  asserted  in  these  passages.  (1.)  That  the  bodies  of 
men  must  be  specially  suited  to  the  state  of  existence  in  which 
they  are  to  live  and  act.  (2.)  That  our  present  bodies,  that  is,  our 
bodies  as  now  organized,  consisting  as  they  do  of  tlesh  and  blood, 
are  not  adapted  to  our  future  state  of  being.  And  (3.)  That 
evervthine:  in  the  org-anization  or  constitution  of  our  bodies 
designed  to  meet  our  present  necessities,  will  cease  with  the  life 
that  now  is.  Nothing  of  that  kind  will  belong  to  the  resurrection 
body.  If  blood  be  no  longer  our  life,  we  shall  have  no  need  of 
organs  of  respiration  and  nutrition.  So  long  as  we  are  ignorant 
of  the  conditions  of  existence  which  await  us  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, it  is  vain  to  speculate  on  the  constitution  of  our  future  bod- 
ies. It  is  enough  to  know  that  the  glorified  people  of  God  will 
not  be  cumbered  with  useless  organs,  or  trammeled  by  the  limi- 
tations which  are  imposed  by  our  present  state  of  existence. 

The  following  particulars,  however,  may  be  inferred  with  more 
or  less  confidence  from  what  the  Bible  has  revealed  on  this  sub- 
ject,— 

1.  That  our  bodies  after  the  resurrection  will  retain  the  human 
form.  God,  we  are  told,  gave  to  all  his  creatures  on  earth  each 
its  own  body  adapted  to  its  nature,  and  necessary  to  attain  the 
end  of  its  creation.  Any  essential  cliange  in  the  nature  of  the 
body  would  involve  a  corresponding  change  in  its  internal  consti- 
tution. A  bee  in  the  form  of  a  horse  would  cease  to  be  a  bee  ; 
and  a  man  in  any  other  than  a  human  form,  would  cease  to  be  a 
man.     His  body  is  an  essential  element  in  his  constitution.     Ev 


§1.]  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE.  781 

ery  intimation  given  in  Scripture  on  tliis  subject,  tends  to  sustain 
this  conclusion.  Every  time  Christ  appeared  to  his  disciples  not 
only  before,  but  also  after  his  ascension,  as  to  Stephen,  Paul,  and 
John,  it  was  in  human  form.  Origen  conceited  that,  because  the 
circle  is  the  most  perfect  figure,  the  future  body  will  be  globular. 
But  a  creature  in  that  form  would  not  be  recognized  either  in 
earth  or  heaven  as  a  man. 

2.  It  is  probable  that  the  future  body  will  not  only  retain  the 
human  form,  but  that  it  will  also  be  a  glorified  likeness  of  what 
it  was  on  earth.  We  know  that  every  man  has  here  his  inelivid- 
ual  character,  —  peculiarities  mental  and  emotional  which  distin- 
guish him  from  every  other  man.  We  know  that  his  body  by 
its  expression,  air,  and  carriage  more  or  less  clearly  reveals  his 
character.  This  revelation  of  the  inward  by  the  outward  will 
probably  be  far  more  exact  and  informing  in  heaven  than  it  can 
be  here  on  earth.  How  should  we  know  Peter  or  John  in  heaven, 
if  there  were  not  something  in  their  appearance  and  bearing 
corresponding  to  the  image  of  themselves  impressed  by  their 
writings  on  the  minds  of  all  their  readers  ? 

3.  This  leads  to  the  further  remark  that  we  shall  not  only 
recognize  our  friends  in  heaven,  but  also  know,  without  intro- 
duction, prophets,  apostles,  confessors,  and  martyrs,  of  whom  we 
have  read  or  heard  while  here  on  earth,  (a.)  This  is  altogether 
probable  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  If  the  future  body  is  to 
be  the  same  with  the  present,  why  should  not  that  sameness, 
whatever  else  it  may  include,  include  a  certain  sameness  of  ap- 
pearance. (5.)  When  Moses  and  Elias  appeared  on  the  mount 
with  Christ,  they  were  at  once  known  by  the  disciples.  Their 
appearance  corresponded  so  exactly  with  the  conceptions  formed 
from  the  Old  Testament  account  of  their  character  and  conduct, 
that  no  doubt  was  entertained  on  the  subject,  (c.)  It  is  said 
that  we  are  to  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  This  implies  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  will  be  known ;  and  if  they  are  known  surely  others  will 
be  known  also,  (c?.)  It  is  promised  that  our  cup  of  happiness 
will  then  be  full ;  but  it  could  not  be  full,  unless  we  met  in 
heaven  those  whom  we  loved  on  earth,  Man  is  a  social  being: 
with  a  soul  full  of  social  affections,  and  as  he  is  to  be  a  man  in 
heaven,  is  it  not  likely  that  he  will  retain  all  his  social  affections 
there  ?  God  would  hardly  have  put  this  pure  yearning  in  the 
hearts  of  his  people  if  it  were  never  to  be  gratified.  David  weep- 
ing over  his  dead  son,  said,  "  I  shall  go  to  him,  but  he  shall  not 


782  PART  IV     Ch.   II. —the  resurrection. 

return  to  me."  And  this  has  been  the  language  of  every  be- 
reaved heart  from  that  day  to  this,  (e.)  The  Bible  clearly  teaches 
that  man  is  to  retain  all  his  faculties  in  the  future  life.  One  of 
the  most  important  of  those  faculties  is  memory.  If  this  were 
not  retained  there  would  be  a  chasm  in  our  existence.  The  past 
for  us  would  cease  to  exist.  We  could  hardly,  if  at  all,  be  con- 
scious of  our  identity.  We  should  enter  heaven,  as  creatures 
newly  created,  who  had  no  history.  Then  all  the  songs  of  heaven 
would  cease.  There  could  be  no  thanksgiving  for  redemption  ;  no 
recognition  of  all  God's  dealings  with  us  in  this  world.  Memory, 
however,  is  not  only  to  continue,  but  will  doubtless  with  all  our 
faculties  be  greatly  exalted,  so  that  the  records  of  the  past  may 
be  as  legible  to  us  as  the  events  of  the  present.  If  this  be  so,  if 
men  are  to  retain  in  heaven  the  knowledge  of  their  earthly  life ; 
this  of  course  involves  the  recollection  of  all  social  relations,  of 
all  the  ties  of  respect,  love,  and  gratitude  which  bind  men  in  the 
family  and  in  society.  (/.)  The  doctrine  that  in  a  future  life  we 
shall  recognize  those  whom  we  knew  and  loved  on  earth,  has  en- 
tered into  the  faith  of  all  mankind.  It  is  taken  for  granted  in 
the  Bible,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New.  The  pa- 
triarchs always  spoke  of  going  to  their  fathers  when  they  died. 
The  Apostle  exhorts  believers  not  to  mourn  for  the  departed  as 
those  who  have  no  hope  ;  giving  them  the  assurance  that  they 
shall  be  reunited  Avith  all  those  who  die  in  the  Lord. 

4.  We  know  certainly  that  the  future  bodies  of  behevers  are 
to  be,  —  (a.)  Incorruptible  ;  not  merely  destined  never  to  decay, 
but  not  susceptible  of  corruption.  By  the  certain  action  of  phys- 
ical laws,  our  present  body,  as  soon  as  deserted  by  the  soul,  is 
reduced  to  a  mass  of  corruption,  so  revolting  that  we  hasten  to 
bury  our  dead  out  of  our  sight.  The  future  body  will  be  liable 
to  no  such  change ;  neither,  as  we  learn  from  Scripture,  will  it  be 
subject  to  those  diseases  and  accidents  which  so  often  mar  the 
beauty  or  destroy  the  energy  of  the  bodies  in  which  we  now 
dwell.  Being  unsusceptible  of  decay,  they  will  be  incapable  uf, 
or  at  least,  carefully  preserved  from,  suffering,  by  Him  who_  has 
promised  to  wash  all  tears  from  our  eyes. 

(5.)  The  future  body  is  to  be  immortal.  This  is  something  dif- 
ferent from,  something  higher  than  incorruptible  ;  the  latter  is 
negative,  the  other  positive ;  the  one  implies  immunity  from 
decay ;  the  other  not  merely  immunity  from  death,  but  perpetu- 
ity of  liife.  There  is  to  be  no  decrepitude  of  age  ;  no  decay  of 
the  faculties  ;  no  loss  of  vigour  ;  but  immortal  youth. 


§1.]  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE.  783 

((?.)  The  present  body  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  will  be  raised  in 
power.  We  know  very  well  how  weak  we  now  are,  how  little 
we  can  effect ;  how  few  are  our  senses  ;  how  limited  their  range  ; 
but  we  do  not  yet  know  in  what  ways,  or  in  what  measure  our 
power  is  to  be  increased.  It  is  probable  that  however  high  may 
be  our  expectations  on  this  subject,  they  will  fall  short  of  the 
reality  ;  for  it  doth  not  yet  appear,  it  is  not  revealed  in  experi- 
ence or  in  hope,  what  we  shall  be.  We  may  have  new  senses, 
new  and  greatly  exalted  capabilities  of  taking  cognizance  of  ex- 
ternal things,  of  apprehending  their  nature  and  of  deriving 
knowledge  and  enjoyment  from  their  wonders  and  their  beauties. 
Instead  of  the  slow  and  wearisome  means  of  locomotion  to  which 
we  are  now  confined,  we  may  be  able  hereafter  to  pass  with  the 
velocity  of  light  or  of  thought  itself  from  one  part  of  the  uni- 
verse to  another.  Our  power  of  vision,  instead  of  being  confined 
to  the  range  of  a  few  hundred  yards,  may  far  exceed  that  of  the 
most  powerful  telescope.  These  expectations  cannot  be  extrava- 
gant, for  we  are  assured  that  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard, 
neither  has  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive  the 
tilings  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  Him. 

(c?.)  The  body  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  shall  be  raised  in  glory. 
Glory  is  that  which  excites  wonder,  admiration,  and  delight. 
The  bodies  of  the  saints  are  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  Christ's 
glorious  body.  We  shall  be  like  Him  when  we  see  Him  as  He 
is.  More  than  this  cannot  be  said  ;  what  it  means  we  know  not 
now,  but  we  shall  know  hereafter.  We  already  know  that  when 
the  body  of  Christ  was  transfigured  upon  the  mount,  the  Apos- 
tles fainted  and  became  as  dead  men  in  its  presence ;  and  we 
know  that  when  He  shall  come  again  the  second  time  unto  salva- 
tion, the  heavens  and  the  earth  shall  flee  away  at  the  sight  of  his 
glory.  Let  it  suffice  us  to  know  that  as  we  have  borne  the  image 
of  the  earthly,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 
Well  might  the  Apostle  exhort  believers  not  to  mourn  for  the 
pious  dead,  whom  they  are  to  see  again,  arrayed  in  a  beauty  and 
glo]y  of  which  we  can  now  have  no  conception. 

(«.)  It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
When  words  are  used  thus  antithetically,  the  meaning  of  tlie  one 
enables  us  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  other.  We  can, 
therefore,  in  this  case  learn  what  the  word  "  spiritual  "  means, 
from  what  we  know  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "natural."  The 
word  if/vxi^Koi'^  translated  "natural,"  as  every  one  knows,  is  de- 
rived from  ^vxT^,  which  means  sometimes  the  life ;  sometimes  the 


784  PART  IV.   ch.  n.  — the  resurrection. 

principle  of  animal  life  wliicli  men  have  in  common  ^vith  tlie 
brutes ;  and  sometimes  the  soul  in  the  ordinary  and  comprehen- 
sive sense  of  the  term ;  the  rational  and  immortal  principle  of  our 
nature  ;  that  in  which  our  personality  resides  ;  so  that  to  say 
"My  soul  rejoices,"  or,  "My  soul  is  exceeding  sorroAvful,"  is 
equivalent  to  saying,  "  I  rejoice,"  or,  "  I  am  sorrowful."  Such 
being  the  signification  of  the  ^pyxVt  it  is  plain  that  o-w/xa  xpuxtxay, 
the  psychical,  or  natural,  body,  cannot  by  possibility  mean  a  body 
made  out  of  the  </'wx*?-  Iii  like  manner  it  is  no  less  plain  that 
o-wfjia  TmvjjiaTLKov  cannot  by  possibility  mean  a  body  made  of  spirit. 
That  indeed  would  be  as  much  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  to 
speak  of  a  spirit  made  out  of  matter.  Again,  we  know  that  man 
has  an  animal  as  well  as  a  rational  nature  ;  that  is,  his  soul  is  en- 
dowed not  only  mth  reason  and  conscience,  but  also  with  sensi- 
bilities, or  faculties  which  enable  it  to  take  cognizance  of  the  ap- 
petites of  the  body,  as  hunger  and  thirst,  and  of  its  sensations  of 
pleasure  and  pain.  These  appetites  and  sensations  are  states  of 
consciousness  of  the  soul.  The  o-io/xa  i/^ux"<o'''  or  natural  body, 
therefore,  is  a  body  adapted  to  the  soul  in  this  aspect  of  its  na- 
ture ;  and  the  o-w/xa  iTvev/^aTLKor,  or  spiritual  body,  is  a  body  adapted 
to  the  higher  attributes  of  the  soul.  We  know  from  experience 
what  the  former  is ;  it  is  an  earthly  body,  made  of  the  dust  of 
the  earth.  The  chemist  can  analyze  it,  and  reduce  it  to  its  con- 
stituents of  ammonia,  hydrogen,  carbon,  etc.  ;  and  in  the  grave 
it  soon  becomes  undistinguishable  from  other  portions  of  the 
earth's  surface.  It  is  a  body  which,  while  living,  has  constant 
need  of  being  repaired ;  it  must  be  sustained  by  the  oxygen  of 
the  air,  and  by  the  chemical  elements  of  its  food.  It  soon  grows 
weary,  and  must  be  refreshed  by  rest  and  sleep.  In  a  little  more 
than  seventy  years,  it  is  worn  out,  and  drops  into  the  grave.  The 
reverse  of  this  is  true  of  the  spiritual  body  ;  it  has  no  such  neces- 
sities, and  is  not  subject  to  such  weariness  and  decay.  It  is  no 
doubt  involved  in  the  fact,  that  while  our  present  bodies  are 
adapted  to  the  lower  faculties  of  our  nature,  and  the  spiritual 
body  to  our  higher  faculties,  that  the  latter  must  be  more  refined, 
ffitherial,  and,  as  Paul  says,  heavenly,  than  the  other.  Even  now 
the  soul,  in  one  sense,  pervades  the  body.  It  is  in  every  part  of 
it ;  it  is  sensible  of  all  its  changes  of  state  ;  it  gives  to  it  a  look 
and  carriage  which  reveal  man  as  the  lord  of  this  world.  To  a 
far  greater  degree  may  the  soul  permeate  the  refined  and  glorified 
body  which  it  is  to  receive  at  .the  resurrection  of  the  just ;  and 
thus  render  it  to  a  degree  now  incomprehensible,  in  its  very  na- 


§2.]  HISTOllY   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  785 

ture  spiritual.  If  the  face  of  man  formed  out  of  the  clu.^t  of  the 
earth  often  beams  with  intelhgence  and  glows  with  elevated  emo- 
tions, what  may  be  expected  of  a  countenance  made  like  unto 
that  of  the  Son  of  God. 

If  then  our  future  bodies  are  to  retain  the  human  form  ;  to  be 
easily  distinguislied  by  those  who  knew  and  loved  us  on  earth  ;  if 
they  are  to  be  endued  with  an  unknown  power  ;  if  they  are  to 
be  incorruptible,  immortal,  and  spiritual ;  if  we  are  to  bear  the 
image  of  the  heavenly,  we  may  well  bow  down  with  liumble  and 
jo^'ful  hearts  and  receive  the  exhortation  of  the  Apostle  :  "  There- 
fore, my  behaved  brethren,  be  ye  steadfast,  unmovable,  always 
abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that 
your  labour  is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord." 

§  2.  History  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  exclusively 
a  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  It  is  found,  in  different  forms,  in  many  of 
the  ancient  religions  of  the  world.  This  is  the  more  remarkable 
as  it  is  in  itself  so  improbable,  and  so  much  out  of  the  analogy 
of  nature.  One  generation  of  plants  and  animals  succeeds  an- 
other in  uninterrupted  succession  ;  but  the  same  individuals  never 
reappear.  The  case  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  consider 
the  difficulties  with  which  the  doctrine  is  beset ;  difficulties  so 
great  that  it  is  rejected  and  even  ridiculed  by  all  in  this  genera- 
tion who  do  not  recognize  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  an  authority 
from  which  they  dare  not  dissent.  When  such  doctrines  are 
found  not  only  in  the  Bible  but  also  in  the  religions  of  heathen 
nations  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  Hebrews  borrowed  them 
from  their  heathen  neighbours.  This  is  the  hypothesis  adopted 
generally  by  rationalists.  They  urge  in  its  support  that  tlie  doc- 
trine of  Satan,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  of  the  de- 
struction and  renovation  of  the  earth,  do  not  appear  in  those 
portions  of  the  Scriptures  which  were  written  before  the  Babylo- 
nish captivity.  To  carry  out  this  argument  they  refer  Job,  Dan 
iel,  and  a  large  portion  of  Isaiah  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
exile,  contrary  to  evidence  both  external  and  internal  in  favour  of 
the  great(.'r  antiquity  of  those  books.  Even  if  it  be  conceded 
that  the  doctrines  do  not  appear  distinctly  in  any  but  the  later 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  Avould  not  justify  the  as- 
sumption of  their  heathen  origin,  provided  that  their  genesis  can 
be  traced  in  the  earlier  books  of  Scripture.  Nothing  is  more  ob 
vious,  or  more  generally  admitted  than  the  progressive  character 

VOL.   ui  60 


786  PART  IV.     Cii.  IL  — THE   RESURRECTION. 

of  the  divine  revelations.  Doctrines  at  first  obscurely  intimated, 
are  gradually  developed.  This  is  the  case  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity,  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  the  divanity 
of  Christ,  of  the  nature  of  his  redemption,  of  the  future  state  ; 
and,  as  might  be  expected,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is 
just  as  unreasonable  and  as  unhistorical  to  say  that  the  Church 
received  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  from  the 
heathen,  as  that  it  received  from  Plato  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
There  is  another  consideration  on  this  subject,  Avliich  for  the 
Christian  is  decisive.  The  doctrines  which  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  declared  to  be  part  of  the  revelation  of  God,  are  thereby 
declared  not  to  be  of  heathen  origin.  The  heathen  may  have 
held  them,  as  they  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  God  and 
of  the  immortality  of  man  ;  that  does  not  prove  that  such  doc- 
trines have  only  a  human  origin  and  human  authority. 

These  things  being  premised,  it  is  admitted  as  a  remarkable 
fact  that  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  did  prevail  among 
the  ancients  prior  to  the  advent  of  Christ.  Reference  is  some- 
times made  to  the  Brahminic  doctrine  of  the  constant  succession 
of  cycles  of  countless  ages  in  the  history  of  the  universe,  one  cycle 
being  a  reproduction  or  renewal  of  another,  as  having  an  analogy 
to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  "  The  first  appear- 
ance of  this  notion  of  a  bodily  restoration,"  says  Mr.  Alger, ^ 
"  which  occurs  in  the  history  of  opinions,  is  among  the  ancient 
Hindus.  With  them  it  appears  as  a  part  of  a  vast  conception, 
embracing  the  whole  universe  in  an  endless  series  of  total  groAvths, 
decays,  and  exact  restorations.  In  the  beginning  the  Supreme 
Being  is  one  and  alone.  He  thinks  to  himself  '  I  will  become 
many'  [This  is  a  figure  of  speech  ;  for  according  to  the  Hindu  sys- 
tem the  Supreme  Being,  the  Absolute,  cannot  think] .  Straight- 
way the  multiform  creation  germinates  forth,  and  all  beings  live. 
Then  for  an  inconceivable  period  —  a  length  of  time  commensu- 
rate with  the  existence  of  Brahma,  the  Demiurgus  [This  again 
is  a  mixture  of  ideas,  for  Brahma  of  the  Hindus  does  not  corre- 
spond with  the  Demiurgus  of  tho  Greeks] — the  successive -gen- 
erations flourish  and  sink.  At  the  end  of  tliis  period  all  forms 
of  matter,  all  creatures,  sages,  and  gods,  fall  back  into  the  Uni- 
versal Source  whence  they  arose.  Again  the  Su])reme  Being  is 
one  and  alone.  *  After  an  interval  the  same  causes  produce  the 
same  effects,  and  all  things  recur  exactly  as  they  were  before." '^ 

1  Alf^er,  ut  supra,  p.  488. 

2  Wilson,  Lectures  on  the  Religion  of  the  Hindus,  London,  18G2,  vol.  ii.  pp.  91,  95,  100 
103. 


§2.]  HISTORY   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  787 

According  to  the  Hindu  system  men  have  not  to  wait  for  the 
conchision  of  one  of  these  great  cycles  to  be  absorbed  in  the  Su- 
preme Being.  By  a  life  strictly  conformed  to  prescribed  rules, 
and  by  a  process  of  complete  self-abnegation,  they  attain  a  state 
in  which  they  are  lost  in  the  Infinite  as  drops  of  rain  in  the 
ocean.  As  individuals  they  can  never  be  reproduced,  any  more 
than  the  drops  of  rain  can  be  recovered  from  the  otjean.  The 
ocean,  by  evaporation  may  produce  other  clouds  which  shall  fall 
in  other  drops  of  rain ;  but  this  is  not  a  reproduction  of  those 
which  fell  a  thousand  years  ago.  There  is  therefore  no  analogy 
between  this  theory  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. 

"  The  same  general  conception,"  continues  Mr.  Alger,^  "  in  a 
modified  form  was  held  by  the  Stoics  of  later  Greece,  who  doubt- 
less borrowed  it  from  the  East,  and  who  carried  it  out  in  greater 
detail.  '  God  is  an  artistic  fire,  out  of  which  the  cosmopoeia  is- 
sues.' This  fire  proceeds  in  a  certain  fixed  course,  in  obedience  to 
a  fixed  law,  passing  through  certain  intermediate  gradations,  and 
established  periods,  until  it  returns  into  itself  and  closes  with  a 
universal  conflagation The  Stoics  supposed  each  succeed- 
ing formation  to  be  perfectly  like  the  preceding.  Every  partic- 
ular that  liappens  now,  has  happened  exactly  so  a  thousand  times 
before,  and  will  happen  a  thousand  times  again.  This  view  they 
connected  with  astronomical  calculations  making:  the  burnina;  and 
recreating  of  the  world  coincide  with  the  same  position  of  the  stars 
as  that  at  which  it  previously  occurred.  This  they  called  the  res- 
toration of  all  thino^s.  The  idea  of  these  enormous  revolvins: 
identical  periods  —  Day  of  Brahm,  Cycle  of  the  Stoics,  or  Great 
Year  of  Plato  —  is  a  physical  fatalism,  effecting  a  universal  res- 
urrection of  the  past,  by  reproducing  it  over  and  over  forever."  ^ 

In  the  first  volume  of  this  work  the  attempt  was  made  to  show 
that  the  Brahminical  and  several  Grecian  systems  of  philosophy, 
were  only  different  modifications  of  the  pantheistic  theory  of  the 
Infinite  by  fixed  and  necessary  laws  manifesting  itself  in  the  finite 
in  all  its  endless  diversities  of  forms.  This  endless  succession  of 
individuals,  however,  has  no  affinity  with  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  flora  and  fauna  of  this  are  not  a 
resurrection  of  the. plants  and  animals  of  the  geologic  periods. 

In  the  religion  of  Zoroaster  there  is  a  far  nearer  approach  to 
the;  doctrines  of  the  Bible.^     As  the  Scriptures  teach  that  God  at 

1  Alger,  ut  supra,  p.  489. 
Hitter's  Geschichte  d.  Philosophie  d.  AH.  Zeit,  3ter  Th.  xi.  4;  Hamburg,  1831,  p.  582. 
See  Ten  Great  Religions;  an  Essay  in   Comjjarative,   Theology.    By  James  Freeman 
Clarke.    Boston,  1872,  ch.  v.,  specially  p.  200. 


788  PART  IV.    Cn.  II. —  THE   RESURRECTION. 

first  created  all  things  good,  and  made  man  after  his  own  image, 
and  placed  him  upon  probation  in  Eden  ;  so  Zoroaster  taught  that 
Ormuzd  created  all  things  good,  and  that  all  were  sinless  and 
happy,  and  fitted  for  immortality.  And  as  the  Bible  teaches  that 
through  the  seduction  of  Satan  man  fell  from  his  original  state, 
and  became  the  subject  of  sin,  misery,  and  death ;  so  in  the  re- 
ligion of  the  ancient  Persians  it  is  taught,  that  Ahriman,  the  per- 
sonal principle  of  evil,  co-eternal  with  Ormuzd  the  principle  of 
good,  effected  the  ruin  of  man  for  this  world  and  the  next.  Such 
was  the  origin  of  evil ;  such  was  the  beginning  of  tlie  conflict 
between  good  and  evil,  of  which  our  earth  has  been  the  theatre. 
Both  systems  teach  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  good,  and  the  re- 
demption of  man  ;  both  teach  a  future  state,  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  and  the  renewal  of  the  earth,  or,  that  there  are  to  be  a 
new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  It  is  certain  from  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  derive  these  doc- 
trines from  the  Persians ;  it  is,  therefore,  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  the  Persians  derived  them  from  their  neighbours  of 
the  family  of  Shem,  who  were  the  depositaries  of  the  revelations 
of  God. 

It  has  already  been  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  was  clearly  tauglit  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the 
apocryphal  books  of  the  Jews  ;  that  it  was  a  cardinal  article  of 
faith  among  the  Jews  when  Christ  came  into  the  world ;  and  that 
it  was  emphatically  asserted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  We  have 
also  seen  that  the  Bible  teaches  nothing  on  this  subject  beyond 
(1.)  That  the  body  is  to  rise  again.  (2.)  That  its  identity  will 
be  preserved.  And  (3.)  That  it  is  to  be  so  changed  and  refined 
as  to  adapt  it  to  the  high  state  of  existence  to  which  it  is  des- 
tined. In  this  simple  form  the  doctrine  has  ever  been  held  by 
the  Church,  which  is  not  responsible  for  the  fanciful  theories 
adopted  by  many  of  its  members. 

The  philosophical  tlieologians  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  in  the 
early  Church,  were  disposed  to  spiritualize  all  the  Bible  saj^s  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  of  its  future  state.  The  Latins, 
on  the  other  hand,  adhered  to  a  literal  interpretation  of  Scriptu- 
ral language,  often  to  the  grossest  extremes.  Augustine,  as  we 
have  seen,  thought  the  resurrection  body  was  to  be  composed  of 
all  the  matter  that  ever  belonged  to  it  in  this  world,  and  Jerome 
asks :  "  If  men  are  not  raised  with  flesh  and  bones,  how  can  the 
damned  gnash  their  teeth  in  hell  ?  "  ^ 

1  See  Jerome.     Coiilra  Juannnem  Hierosvlymitanuni,  33,   Works,  edit.  Migne,  vol.  ii. 
op.  384,  385  [441]. 


§  2]  HISTORY    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  789 

During  the  Middle  Ages,  the  faitli  of  the  Church,  on  this  sub- 
ject, remained  unchanged.  The  speculations  of  individual  writers 
were  diverse,  inconsistent,  and  of  little  interest,  because  of  no 
authority. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  simple  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  was  reaffirmed  ;  and  theologians  beyond  those  limits  were 
left  to  their  own  guidance.  The  form  in  which  the  doctrine  was 
usually  presented  by  the  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
was  :  (1.)  That  the  resurrection  body  is  to  be  numerically,  and 
in  substance,  one  with  the  present  body.  (2.)  Tliat  it  is  to  have 
the  same  organs  of  sight,  hearing,  etc.,  as  in  this  life.  (3.)  Many 
held  that  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  present  body  as  to  size  or 
stature,  appearance,  etc.,  are  to  be  restored.  (4.)  As  the  bodies 
of  the  righteous  are  to  be  refined  and  glorified,  those  of  the 
wicked,  it  was  assumed,  would  be  proportionately  repulsive.  The 
later  Protestant  theologians,  as  well  Lutheran  as  Reformed,  con- 
fine themselves  more  strictly  within  the  limits  of  Scripture. 

Rationalism,  as  far  as  it  prevailed,  swept  the  whole  doctrine 
away.  Reason  does  not  teach  the  doctrine,  and  cannot  explain 
it ;  therefore,  it  has  no  title  to  recognition.  Deistical  rationalists 
admitted  that  the  doctrine  was  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  this 
was  to  them  only  an  additional  reason  for  denying  their  divine 
origin.  The  more  moderate  rationalists,  who  admitted  the  Bible 
to  be  a  revelation  of  the  truths  of  reason,  or  of  natural  religion, 
explained  away  all  that  it  teaches  concerning  the  resurrection, 
making  it  refer  to  the  rising  of  the  soul  from  a  state  of  sin  to  a 
state  of  holiness  ;  or,  as  relating  not  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  but  to  the  continued  life  of  the  soul  in  a  future  state. 

Of  course  the  modern  speculative,  or  pantheistic  theology,  ig- 
nores the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection.  It  does  not  even  admit  of 
the  existence  of  the  soul  after  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  The 
race  is  immortal,  but  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed  are 
not.  Scientific  materialism  admits  of  no  other  resurrection  than 
the  reappearance  of  the  same  chemical  elements  which  now  form 
our  bodies,  in  the  bodies  of  future  plants,  animals,  or  men.  The 
lime  in  our  bones  may  help  to  form  the  bones  of  those  who  come 
after  us.  Tlius  philosophy  and  science,  when  divorced  from  the 
Bible,  lead  us  only  to  negations,  darkness,  and  despair. 


CHAPTER  III. 

SECOND   ADVENT. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Remarks. 

This  is  a  very  comprehensive  s^jid  very  difficult  subject.  It  is 
intimately  allied  with  all  the  other  great  doctrmes  which  fall 
under  the  head  of  eschatology.  It  has  excited  so  much  interest 
in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  that  the  books  written  upon  it  would 
of  themselves  make  a  library.  The  subject  cannot  be  adequately 
discussed  without  taking  a  survey  of  all  the  prophetic  teachings 
of  the  Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New. 
This  task  cannot  be  satisfactorily  accomplished  by  any  one  who 
has  not  made  the  study  of  the  prophecies  a  specialty.  The  au- 
thor, knowing  that  he  has  no  such  qualifications  for  the  work, 
purposes  to  confine  himself  in  a  great  measure  to  a  historical  sur- 
vey of  the  different  schemes  of  interpreting  the  Scriptural  proph- 
ecies relating  to  this  subject. 

The  first  point  to  be  considered  is  the  true  design  of  prophecy, 
and  how  that  design  is  to  be  ascertained.  Prophecy  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  history.  It  is  not  intended  to  give  us  a  knowledge  of 
the  future,  analogous  to  that  which  history  gives  us  of  the  past. 
This  truth  is  often  overlooked.  We  see  interpreters  undertaking 
to  give  detailed  expositions  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  of  Eze- 
kiel,  of  Daniel,  and  of  the  Apocalypse,  relating  to  the  future,  with 
the  same  confidence  with  which  they  would  record  the  history  of 
the  recent  past.  Such  interpretations  have  always  been  falsified 
by  the  event.  But  this  does  not  discourage  a  certain  class  of 
minds,  for  whom  the  future  has  a  fascination  and  who  delight  in 
the  solution  of  enigmas,  from  renewing  tlie  attempt.  In  proph- 
ecy, instruction  is  subordinate  to  moral  impression.  The  occur- 
rence of  important  events  is  so  predicted  as  to  produce  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  of  God  faith  that  they  will  certainly  come  to 
pass.  Enough  is  made  known  of  their  nature,  and  of  the  time 
and  mode  of  their  occurrence,  to  awaken  attention,  desire,  or 
apprehension,  as  the  case  may  be  ;  and  to  secure  proper  effort  on 
the  part  of  those  concerned  to  be  prepared  for  what  is  to  come  to 


§  1.]  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS.  791 

pass.  Although  such  predictions  may  be  variously  misinterpre- 
ted before  their  fulfilment ;  yet  when  fulfilled,  the  agreement  be- 
tween the  prophecy  and  the  event  is  seen  to  be  such  as  to  render 
the  divine  origin  of  the  prophecy  a  matter  of  certainty.  Thus 
with  regard  to  the  first  advent  of  Christ,  the  Old  Testament 
prophecies  rendered  it  certain  that  a  great  Redeemer  was  to  ap- 
pear; that  He  was  to  be  a  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King;  that  He 
would  deliver  his  people  from  their  sins,  and  from  the  evils  under 
which  they  groaned  ;  that  He  was  to  establish  a  kingdom  which 
should  ultimately  absorb  all  the  kingdoms  on  earth  ;  and  that  He 
would  render  all  his  people  supijemely  happy  and  blessed.  These 
predictions  had  the  effect  of  turning  the  minds  of  the  whole 
Jewish  nation  to  the  future,  in  confident  expectation  that  the 
Deliverer  would  come  ;  of  exciting  earnest  desire  for  his  advent ; 
and  of  leading  the  pious  portion  of  the  people  to  prayerful  prepa- 
ration for  that  event.  Nevertheless,  of  all  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands to  whom  these  predictions  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were 
made  known,  not  a  single  person,  so  far  as  appears,  interpreted 
them  aright ;  yet,  when  fulfilled,  we  can  almost  construct  a  his- 
tory of  the  events  from  these  misunderstood  predictions  concern- 
ing them.  Christ  was  indeed  a  king,  but  no  such  king  as  the 
world  had  ever  seen,  and  such  as  no  man  expected  ;  He  was  a 
priest,  but  the  only  priest  that  ever  lived  of  whose  priesthood 
he  was  Himself  the  victim  ;  He  did  establish  a  kingdom,  but  it 
was  not  of  this  world.  It  was  foretold  that  Elias  should  first 
come  and  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord.  He  did  come ;  but  in 
a  way  in  which  no  man  did  or  could  have  anticipated. 

It  follows,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  prophecy  makes  a 
general  impression  with  regard  to  future  events,  which  is  reliable 
and  salutary,  while  the  details  remain  in  obscurity.  The  Jews 
were  not  disappointed  in  the  general  impression  made  on  their 
minds  by  the  predictions  relating  to  the  Messiah.  It  was  only  in 
the  explanation  of  details  that  they  failed.  The  Messiah  was  a 
king  ;  He  did  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David,  but  not  in  the  way 
in  which  they  expected  ;  He  is  to  subdue  all  nations,  not  by  the 
sword,  as  they  supposed,  but  by  truth  and  love  ;  He  was  to  make 
his  people  priests  and  kings,  but  not  worldly  princes  and  satraps. 
The  utter  failure  of  the  Old  Testament  Church  in  interpreting 
the  prophecies  relating  to  the  first  advent  of  Christ,  should  teach 
us  to  be  modest  and  diffident  in  explaining  those  which  relate  to 
his  second  coming.  We  should  be  satisfied  with  the  great  truths 
which  those  prophecies  unfold,  and  leave  the  details  to  be  ex- 


792  PART   IV.     Ch.   III.  — the   second  ADVENT. 

plained  by  the  event.     This  the  Church,  as  a  Church,  has  gene- 
rally done. 

§  2.   The  Common  Church  Doctrine. 

Tlie  common  Church  doctrine  is,  first,  that  there  is  to  be  a 
second  personal,  visible,  and  glorious  advent  of  the  Son  of  God. 
Secondly,  that  tlie  events  which  are  to  precede  that  advent,  are 

1.  The  universal  diffusion  of  the  Gospel ;  or,  as  our  Lord  ex- 
presses it,  the  ingathering  of  the  elect ;  this  is  tlie  vocation  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

2.  The  conversion  of  the  Jews,  which  is  to  be  national.  As 
their  casting  away  was  national,  although  a  remnant  was  saved  ; 
so  their  conversion  may  be  national,  although  some  may  remain 
obdurate. 

3.  The  coming  of  Antichrist. 

Thirdly,  that  the  events  which  are  to  attend  the  second  advent 
are :  — 

1.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust. 

2.  The  general  judgment. 

3.  The  end  of  the  world.     And, 

4.  The  consummation  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

§  8.   The  Personal  Advent  of  Christ. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  words  "  coming  of  the  Lord  "  are  often 
used  in  Scripture  for  any  signal  manifestation  of  his  presence 
either  for  judgment  or  for  merc3^  When  Jesus  promised  to 
manifest  Himself  to  his  disciples,  "  Judas  saith  unto  Him,  not 
Iscariot,  Lord,  how  is  it  that  thou  wilt  manifest  thyseK  unto  us, 
and  not  unto  the  world  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  a 
man  love  me  he  will  keep  my  words  :  and  my  Father  will  love 
him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him." 
(John  xiv.  22,  23.)  There  is  a  coming  of  Christ,  true  and  real, 
which  is  not  outward  and  visible.  Thus  also  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Church  in  Pergamos  it  is  said  :  "  Repent ;  or  else  I  will  come 
unto  thee  quickly."  (Rev.  ii.  16.)  This  form  of  expression 
is  used  frequently  in  the  Bible.  There  are,  therefore,  many 
commentators  who  explain  everything  said  in  the  New  Testament 
of  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  of  the  spiritual  manifestation  of 
his  power.  Thus  jNIr.  Alger,  to  cite  a  single  example  of  this 
school,  says  :  "  The  Hebrews  called  any  signal  manifestation  of 
power — especially  any  dreadful  calamity  —  a  coming  of  the 
Lord.     It  was  a  comino:  of  Jehovah  when  his  vengeance  strewed 


§3.]  PERSONAL   ADVENT    OF    CHRIST.  793 

the  gromid  with  the  corpses  of  Sennacherib's  host ;  when  its 
storm  swept  Jerusalem  as  with  fire,  and  bore  Israel  into  bondage  ; 
when  its  sword  came  down  upon  Idumea  and  was  bathed  in  blood 
upon  Edom.  '  The  day  of  the  Lord  '  is  another  term  of  precisely 
similar  import.  It  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  about  fifteen 
times.  In  every  instance  it  means  some  mighty  manifestation  of 
God's  power  in  calamity.  These  occasions  are  pictured  forth 
with  the  most  astounding  figures  of  speech."  ^  On  the  following 
page  he  says  he  fully  believes  that  the  evangelists  and  early 
Christians  understood  the  language  of  Christ  in  reference  to  his 
second  coming,  as  predictions  of  a  personal  and  visible  advent, 
connected  with  a  resurrection  and  a  general  judgment,  but  he 
more  than  doubts  whether  such  was  the  meanino;  of  Christ  Him- 
self.  (1.)  Because  he  says  nothing  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
(2.)  The  figures  which  He  uses  are  precisely  those  which  the 
Jewish  prophets  employed  in  predicting  "  great  and  signal  events 
on  the  earth."  (3.)  Because  He  "  fixed  the  date  of  the  events 
He  referred  to  mthin  that  generation."  Christ  he  thinks,  meant 
to  teach  that  his  "  truths  shall  prevail  and  shall  be  owned  as  the 
criteria  of  Divine  judgment.  According  to  them,"  he  understands 
Christ  to  say,  "  all  the  righteous  shall  be  distinguished  as  my 
subjects,  and  all  the  iniquitous  shall  be  separated  from  my  king- 
dom. Some  of  those  standing  here  shall  not  taste  death  till  all 
these  things  be  fulfilled.  Then  it  will  be  seen  that  I  am  the 
Messiah,  and  that  through  the  eternal  principles  of  truth  which  I 
have  proclaimed  I  shall  sit  upon  a  throne  of  glory,  —  not  liter- 
ally, in  person,  as  you  thought,  blessing  the  Jews  and  cursing  the 
Gentiles,  but  spiritually,  in  the  truth,  dispensing  joy  to  good  men 
and  woe  to  bad  men,  according  to  their  deserts."  It  is  something 
to  have  it  admitted  that  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians  be- 
lieved in  the  personal  advent  of  Christ.  Wliat  the  Apostles  be- 
lieved we  are  bound  to  believe ;  for  St.  John  said  "  He  that 
knoweth  God,  heareth  us."  That  the  New  Testament  does 
teach  a  second,  visible,  and  glorious  appearing  of  the  Son  of  God, 
is  plain :  — 

1.  From  the  analogy  between  the  first  and  second  advents. 
The  rationalistic  Jews  would  have  had  precisely  the  same  reasons 
for  believing  in  a  more  spiritual  coming  of  the  Messiah  as  modern 
rationalists  have  fOr  saying  that  his  second  coming  is  to  be  spirit- 
ual. The  advent  in  both  cases  is  predicted  in  very  nearly  the 
same  terms.     If,  therefore,  his  first  coming  was  in  person  and 

1  Alger's  Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life.  Philadelphia,  1864,  p.  319. 


794  PART   IV.     Cii.   III.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

visible,  so  liis  second  coming  must  be.  The  two  advents  are 
often  spoken  of  in  connection,  the  one  iUustrating  the  other.  He 
came  the  first  time  as  the  Lamb  of  God  bearing  the  sins  of  the 
world ;  He  is  to  come  "  the  second  time,  without  sin,  unto  salva- 
tion." (Heb.  ix.  28.)  God,  said  the  apostle  Peter,  "  shall  send 
Jesus  Christ,  Avhich  before  was  preached  unto  you :  whom  the 
heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all  things, 
which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets 
since  the  Avorld  began."  (Acts  iii.  20,  21.)  Christ  is  now  invisible 
to  us,  having  been  received  up  into  heaven.  He  is  to  remain 
thus  invisible,  until  God  shall  send  him  at  the  restitution  of  all 
things. 

2.  In  many  places  it  is  directly  asserted  that  his  appearing  is 
to  be  personal  and  visible.  At  the  time  of  his  ascension,  the  an- 
gels said  to  his  disciples  :  "  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye  gaz- 
ing up  into  heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  from 
you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen 
him  go  into  heaven."  (Acts  i.  11.)  His  second  coming  is  to  be  as 
visible  as  his  ascension.  They  saw  Him  go  ;  and  they  shall  see 
Him  come.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  it  is  said,  "  Hereafter  shall  ye  see 
the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven  ;  "  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  "  Then  shall  all  the 
tribes  of  tlie  earth  mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory." 
Luke  xxi.  27,  "  Then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  a 
cloud." 

3.  The  circumstances  attending  the  second  advent  prove  that 
it  is  to  be  personal  and  visible.  It  is  to  be  in  the  clouds  ;  with 
power  and  great  glory ;  with  the  holy  angels  and  all  the  samts ; 
and  it  is  to  be  mtli  a  shout  and  the  voice  of  the  archangel. 

4.  The  effects  ascribed  to  his  advent  prove  the  same  thing. 
All  the  tribes  of  the  earth  shall  mourn  ;  the  dead,  both  small 
and  great  are  to  arise  ;  the  wicked  sliall  call  on  the  rocks  and 
hills  to  cover  them  ;  the  saints  are  to  be  caught  up  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air ;  and  the  earth  and  the  heavens  are  to  flee  away 
at  his  presence. 

5.  That  the  Apostles  understood  Christ  to  predict  his  seconc 
coming  in  person  does  not  admit  of  doubt.  Indeed  almost  all  tht 
rationalistic  commentators  teach  that  the  Apostles  fully  believec 
and  even  taught  tluit  the  second  advent  with  all  its  glorious  coni 
sequences  would  occur  in  their  day.  Certain  it  is  that  they  be 
lieved  that  He  would  come  visibly  and  with  great  glory,  and  tha^ 


S  3.]  PERSONAL   ADVENT    OF   CHRIST.  795 

the}'  held  liis  coming  as  the  great  object  of  expectation  and  desire. 
Indeed  Christians  are  described  as  those  who  "  are  waiting  for 
the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (1  Cor.  i.  7)  ;  as  those  who 
are  "  looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of 
the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  "  (Tit.  ii.  13)  (it  is 
to  them  who  look  for  Him,  He  is  to  "  appear  the  second  time, 
without  sin  imto  salvation,"  Heb.  ix.  28)  ;  as  those  who  are  ex- 
pecting and  earnestly  desiring  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God.  (2 
Pet.  iii.  12.)  It  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings that  they  give  such  prominence  to  the  doctrine  of  the  second 
advent.  "  Judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come." 
(1  Cor.  iv.  5.)  "  Christ  the  first-fruits ;  afterwards  they  that  are 
Christ's  at  his  coming."  (1  Cor.  xv.  23.)  Ye  are  our  rejoicing  "  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  (2  Cor.  i.  14.)  "He  ...  .  will  per- 
form it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Phil.  i.  C.)  "  That  I 
may  rejoice  in  the  day  of  Christ."  (ii.  16.)  "  Our  conversation  is 
in  heaven,  from  whence  also  we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  (iii.  20.)  "  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  ap- 
pear, then  shall  ye  also  appear  with  Him  in  glory."  (Col.  iii.  4.) 
"  To  wait  for  his  Son  from  heaven,  whom  he  raised  from  the 
dead,  even  Jesus,  which  delivered  us  from  the  wrath  to  come." 
(1  Thess.  i.  10.)  "  What  is  our  hope,  ....  are  not  even  ye  in  the 
presence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  his  coming  ?  "  (ii.  19.)  "  Un- 
blamable in  holiness  ....  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  all  his  saints."  (iii.  13.)  "We  which  are  alive,  and  remain 
unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord  ....  shall  be  caught  up  ...  .  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  :  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord."  (iv.  15-17.)  In  his  second  epistle  he  assures  the  Thes- 
salonians  that  they  shall  have  rest,  "  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven."  (2  Thess.  i.  7.)  The  coming  of  Christ, 
however,  he  tells  them  was  not  at  hand  ;  there  must  come  a  great 
falling  away  first.  Paul  said  to  Timothy,  "  Keep  this  command- 
ment without  spot,  unrebukable,  until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Clirist."  (1  Tim.  vi.  14.)  "  There  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown 
of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give 
me  at  that  day  :  and  not  to  me  only,  but  unto  all  them  also  that 
love  his  appearing."  (2  Tim.  iv.  8.)  The  epistles  of  Peter  afford 
the  same  evidence  of  the  deep  hold  which  the  promise  of  Christ's 
second  coming  had  taken  on  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  and  of  all 
the  early  Christians.  He  tells  his  readers  that  they  "  are  kept 
by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation,  ready  to  be 
revealed  in  the  last  time  ....  that  the  trial  of  your  faith,  .  .  .  , 


796  PART  IV.    Ch.  Ill  — the   second  ADVENT. 

might  be  found  unto  praise,  and  honour,  and  glory,  at  the  appear- 
ing of  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Pet.  i.  5-7.)  Men  are  to  "  give  account 
to  Him  that  is  ready  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead."  (iv.  5.) 
"  Rejoice,  ....  that,  when  his  glory  shall  be  revealed,  ye  may  be 
glad  also  with  exceeding  joy."  (verse  13.)  "  When  the  chief  Shep- 
herd shall  appear,  ye  shall  receive  a  crown  of  glory."  (v.  4.)  "  We 
have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables,  when  we  made  known 
unto  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but 
were  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty."  (2  Pet.  i.  16).  The  transfigu- 
ration on  the  mount  was  a  type  and  pledge  of  the  glory  of  the 
second  advent.  The  Apostle  warns  the  disciples  that  scoffers 
would  come  "  saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?  for 
since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were  from 
the  beginning  of  the  creation."  In  answer  to  this  objection,  he 
reminds  them  that  the  threatened  deluge  was  long  delayed,  but 
came  at  last ;  that  time  is  not  with  God  as  it  is  with  us ;  that 
■with  Him  a  thousand  years  are  as  one  day,  and  one  day  as  a 
thousand  years.  He  repeats  the  assurance  that  "  the  day  of 
the  Lord  will  come  as  a  thief  in  the  night ;  in  the  which  the 
heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements 
shall  melt  with  fervent  heat ;  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that 
are  therein,  shall  be  burned  up."  (2  Peter  iii.  3-10.) 

From  all  these  passages,  and  from  the  whole  drift  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  plain,  (1.)  That  the  Apostles  fully  believed  that 
there  is  to  be  a  second  coming  of  Christ.  (2.)  That  his  coming 
is  to  be  in  person,  visible  and  glorious.  (3.)  That  they  kept  this 
great  event  constantly  before  their  own  minds,  and  urged  it  on 
the  attention  of  the  people,  as  a  motive  to  patience,  constancy, 
joy,  and  holy  living.  (4.)  That  the  Apostles  believed  that  the 
second  advent  of  Christ  would  be  attended  by  the  general  res- 
urrection, the  final  judgment,  and  the  end  of  the  world. 

As  aheady  intimated,  it  is  objected  to  this  view  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  the  New  Testament  referring  to  the  Second  Advent,  — 

1.  That  the  first  advent  of  Christ  is  predicted  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament in  nearly  as  glowing  terms  as  his  second  coming  is-  set 
forth  in  the  New  Testament.  He  was  to  come  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven  ;  with  great  pomp  and  power ;  all  nations  were  to  be  sub- 
ject to  Him;  all  people  were  to  be  gathered  before  Him;  the^ 
stars  were  to  fall  from  heaven  ;  the  sun  was  to  be  darkened,  anc 
the  moon  to  be  turned  into  blood.  These  descriptions  were  noi 
realized  by  the  event ;  and  are  understood  to  refer  to  the  great! 
changes  in  the  state  of  the  world  to  be  effected  by  his  coming.] 


1 


§3.]  PERSONAL   ADVENT  OF   CHRIST.  797 

It  is  unreasonable,  therefore,  as  it  is  -agreed,  to  expect  anything      (^}/f~^^^^^ 
like  a  literal  fulfilment  of  these  New  Testament  prophecies.       To  " 

this  it  may  be  answered,  (1.)  That  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
Messianic  period  is  described  as  a  whole.  The  fact  that  the 
Messiah  was  to  come  and  establish  an  everlasting  kingdom  which 
was  to  triumph  over  all  opposition,  and  experience  a  glorious 
consummation,  is  clearly  foretold.  All  these  events  were,  so  to 
speak,  included  in  the  same  picture  ;  but  the  perspective  was 
not  preserved.  The  prophecies  were  not  intended  to  give  the 
chronological  order  of  the  events  foretold.  Hence  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  is  depicted  as  in  immediate  prox- 
imity with  his  appearance  in  the  flesh.  This  led  almost  all  the 
Jews,  and  even  the  disciples  of  Christ  themselves,  before  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  to  look  for  the  immediate  establishment  of  the  Mes- 
siah's kingdom  in  its  glory.  Such  being  the  character  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  it  cannot  be  fairly  inferred  that  they 
have  as  yet  received  their  full  accomplishment ;  or  that  they  are 
now  being  fulfilled  in  the  silent  progress  of  the  Gospel.  They 
include  the  past  and  the  present,  but  much  remains  to  be  accom- 
plished in  the  future  more  in  accordance  with  their  literal  mean- 
ing. (2.)  The  character  of  the  predictions  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  admit  of  their  being  made  to  refer  to  any  spiritual 
coming  of  Christ  or  to  the  constant  progress  of  his  Church.  They 
evidently  refer  to  a  single  event ;  to  an  event  in  the  future,  not 
now  in  progress  ;  an  event  which  shall  attract  the  attention  of  all 
nations,  and  be  attended  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the 
complete  salvation  of  the  righteous,  and  the  condemnation  of  the 
wicked.  (3.)  A  third  answer  to  the  objection  under  considera- 
tion is,  that  the  Apostles,  as  is  conceded,  understood  the  predic- 
tions of  Christ  concerning  his  second  coming,  in  the  way  in  which 
they  have  been  understood  by  the  Church,  as  a  whole,  from  that 
day  to  this. 

2.  A  second  objection  to  the  common  Church  view  of  the 
eschatology  of  the  New  Testament  is,  that  our  Lord  expressly 
says  that  the  events  which  He  foretold  were  to  come  to  pass  dur 
ing  that  generation.  His  words  are,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you. 
This  generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled." 
This  objection  is  founded  upon  the  pregnant  discourse  of  Christ 
recorded  in  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  chapters  of 
Matthew.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  those  chapters  contain  the 
answer  which  Christ  gave  to  three  questions  addressed  to  Him  by 
his  disciples;  first,  when  the  destruction   of  the  temple  and  ol 


"98  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

Jerusalem  was  to  occur  ;  second,  what  was  to  be  the  sign  of  his 
coming  ;  and  third,  when  the  end  of  the  world  was  to  take 
place.  The  difficulty  in  interpreting  this  discourse  is,  to  deter- 
mine its  relation  to  these  several  questions.  There  are  three 
methods  of  interpretation  which  have  been  applied  to  this  pas- 
sage. The  first  assumes  that  the  whole  of  our  Lord's  discourse 
refers  but  to  one  question,  namely,  When  was  Jerusalem  to  be 
destroyed  and  Christ's  kingdom  to  be  inaugurated  ;  the  second 
adopts  the  theory  of  what  used  to  be  called  the  double  sense  of 
projDhecy  ;  that  is,  that  the  same  words  or  prediction  refer  to  one 
event  in  one  sense,  and  to  a  different  event  in  a  higher  sense ;  the 
third  assumes  that  one  part  of  our  Lord's  predictions  refers  exclu- 
sively to  one  of  the  questions  asked,  and  that  other  portions  refer 
exclusively  to  the  other  questions. 

The  rationalistic  interpreters  adopt  the  first  method  and  refer 
everything  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  polity,  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  the  inauguration  of  the  Church  which  is  to  do 
its  work  of  judgment  in  the  earth.  Some  evangelical  interpreters 
also  assume  that  our  Lord  answers  the  three  questions  put  to 
Him  as  one,  as  they  constituted  in  fact  but  one  in  the  minds  of 
his  disciples,  since  they  believed  that  the  three  events,  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  end 
of  the  world,  were  all  to  occur  together.  Thus  Luthardt  says : 
"  There  are  three  questions  according  to  the  words ;  but  only 
one  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  as  they  did  not  consider  the 
three  events,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  and  the  end  of  the  world,  as  separated  chronologically ; 
but  as  three  great  acts  in  the  final  drama  of  the  world's  history."  ^ 
Li  this  sense  our  Lord,  he  adds,  answered  their  inquiries.  Ho 
does  not  separate  the  different  subjects,  so  as  to  speak  first  of  one 
and  then  of  another  ;  but  he  keeps  all  ever  in  view.  "  It  is  the 
method,"  he  says,  "of  Biblical  prophecy,  which  our  l^ord  ob- 
serves, always  to  predict  the  one  great  end  and  all  else  and  Aviuit 
is  preparatory,  only  so  far  as  it  stands  in  connection  with  tlint 
end  and  appears  as  one  of  its  elements."  ^  Although,  theit^forc, 
the  prophecy  of  Christ  extends  to  events  in  the  distant  future.  Ho 
could  say  that  that  geueration  should  not  pass  away  until  all  was 
fulfilled  ;  for  the  desti-uction  of  Jei-usalem  was  the  commencement 
of  that  work  of  judgment  which  (yhvist  foretold. 

1  D!e  Lihre  rnn  (hn  ht-Jvn  D!iir/cn  hi  Ahlimvllintritn  vnd  Si-liriJ'.'rnishf/iinr/pn  itftr^/cntelU 
rou  Chr.  Ernst  Lutliardt,  dcr  Theolojjic  Uoktor  iiiul  Professor  zii  Luipziii.  Lcij);-.  g,  1S61, 
p.  87. 

a  Ibid.  pp.  87,  88. 


§  3.]  PERSONAL   ADVENT    OF   CHRIST.  799 

According  to  this  view,  the  first  method  of  interpretation  dif- 
fers very  little  from  the  second  of  those  above  mentioned.  Both 
suppose  that  the  same  words  or  descriptions  are  intended  to  refer  to 
two  or  more  events  very  different  in  their  nature  and  in  the  time 
of  their  occurrence.  Isaiah's  prediction  of  the  great  deliverance 
which  God  was  to  effect  for  his  people,  was  so  framed  as  to  an- 
swer both  to  the  redemption  of  the  Jews  from  their  captivity  in 
Babylon,  and  to  the  greater  redemj^tion  by  the  Messiah.  It  was 
in  fact  and  equally  a  prediction  of  both  events.  The  former  was 
the  type,  and  the  first  step  toward  the  accomplishment  of  the 
other.  So  also  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Zechariah,  the 
prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  spiritual  redemp- 
tion, and  the  final  judgment,  are  blended  together.  As,  there- 
fore, in  the  Old  Testament  the  Messianic  prophecies  took  in  the 
whole  scope  of  God's  dealings  with  his  people,  including  their 
deliverance  from  Babylon  and  their  redemption  by  Christ,  so  as 
to  make  it  doubtful  Avhat  refers  to  the  former  and  what  to  the 
latter  event ;  so  this  discourse  of  Christ  may  be  considered  as 
taking  in  the  whole  history  of  his  kingdom,  including  his  great 
work  of  judgment  in  casting  out  the  Jews  and  calling  the  Gen- 
tiles, as  well  as  the  final  consummation  of  his  work.  Thus  every- 
thing predicted  of  the  final  judgment  had  its  counterpart  in  what 
was  fulfilled  in  that  generation. 

The  third  method  of  interpretation  is  greatly  to  be  preferred, 
if  it  can  be  successfully  carried  out.  Christ  does  in  fact  answer 
the  three  questions  presented  by  his  disciples.  He  told  when  the 
temple  and  the  city  were  to  be  destroyed  ;  it  was  when  they 
should  see  Jerusalem  compassed  about  Avith  armies.  He  told 
them  that  the  sign  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  was  to  be 
great  defection  in  the  Church,  dreadful  persecutions,  and  all  but 
irresistible  temptations,  and  that  with  his  coming  were  to  be  con- 
nected the  final  judgment  and  the  end  of  the  world  ;  but  that 
the  time  when  those  events  were  to  occur,  was  not  given  unto 
them  to  know,  nor  even  to  the  angels  of  heaven.  (]\Iatt.  xxiv.  36.) 

If  this  be  the  method  of  interpreting"  these  important  predic- 
tions, then  the  declaration  contained  in  INIatt.  xxiv.  34,  "  This 
generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled,"  must 
be  restricted  to  the  '■'■  all  things  "  spoken  of,  referring  to  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  and  the  inauguration  of  the  Church  as 
Christ's  kingdom  on  earth.  There  is,  however,  high  authority 
for  making  17  ysvck  aSr?;,  here  and  in  the  parallel  passages,  Mark 
xiii.  30  and  Luke  xxi.  32,  refer  to  Israel  as  a  people  or  race  ;  in 


800  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.  — THE    SECOND  ADVENT. 

this  case  the  meaning  would  be  that  the  JeAvs  would  ivA,  cease  to 
be  a  distinct  people  until  his  predictions  were  fulfilled.^  There 
is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  discourse  of  Christ's  inconsistent  with 
the  common  Church  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  and  concomitants 
of  his  Second  Advent. 

§  4.    The  Calling  of  the  Crentiles. 

The  first  great  event  which  is  to  precede  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  is  the  universal  proclamation  of  the  Gospel. 

1.  Tlie  first  argument  in  proof  of  the  position  that  the  Gospel 
must  be  preached  to  all  nations  before  the  second  advent,  is 
founded  on  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  there 
distinctly  foretold  that  when  the  Messiah  appeared  the  Spirit 
should  be  poured  out  on  all  flesh,  and  that  all  men  should  see  the 
salvation  of  God.  The  Messiah  was  to  be  a  light  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel.  The  feet  of 
those  who  brought  the  glad  tidings  and  published  peace,  were  to 
be  beautiful  upon  the  mountains.  God  said  in  Hosea  ii.  23,  "  I 
will  say  to  them  which  were  not  my  people,  Thou  art  my  people  ; 
and  they  shall  say,  Thou  art  my  God."  And  in  Isaiah  xlv.  22, 
23,  "  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  : 
for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.  I  have  sworn  by  myseK 
....  that  unto  me  every  knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shaU 
swear."  That  is,  the  true  religion  shall  prevail  over  the  whole 
earth.  Jehovah  shall  everywhere  be  recognized  and  Avorshipped 
as  the  only  true  God.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  these  and 
many  other  passages  of  like  import  are  quoted  and  ajjplied  b}^  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gospel  dispensation.  They  are  enforced  on  the  at- 
tention of  those  to  whom  they  wrote  as  showing  the  Gentiles  that 
the  Gospel  was  designed  for  them  as  well  as  for  the  Jews  ;  and  to 
impress  upon  the  Church  its  obligation  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature  under  heaven. 

2.  Christ  repeatedly  taught  that  the  Gospel  was  to  be  preached 
to  all  nations  before  his  second  coming.  Thus  m  Matt.  xxiv.  14, 
it  is  said,  "  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in- all 
tlje  world  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations  ;  and  then  shall  the  end 
come."  (Mark  xiii.  10)  "  The  gospel  must  first  be  published 
among  all  nations." 

1  Dorner.  De  Oraiione  Chrisli  Eschatolorjica,  Tractntus  Tliaologicus.  Stuttgart,  1844, 
pp.  7G-8G. 

C.  A.  Auberlen,  The  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelations  of  St.  John.  Translated 
by  Rev.  Adolph  Saphir,  Edinburgh,  1856,  p.  354.  "The  Lord  Jesus  himself,"  says  Auber 
len,  "  proi)liesied  (Matthew  xxiv.  34),  that  Israel  was  to  be  preserved  during  the  entire 
Church-historical  period." 


§4.]  THE   CALLING   OF   THE    GENTILES.  801 

3.  Accordingly  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection,  in  giving  his 
commission  to  tlie  Cliurcli,  said :  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  al- 
ways, even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.)  In 
Mark  xvi.  15,  the  commission  reads  thus:  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature."  This  commis- 
sion j)rescribes  the  present  duty  of  the  Church  ;  one  that  is  not 
to  be  deferred  or  languidly  performed  until  a  new  and  more  (ef- 
fective dispensation  be  inaugurated.  The  promise  of  Christ  to 
be  with  his  Church,  as  then  commissioned,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  implies  that  its  obligation  to  teach  the  nations  is  to  con 
tinue  until  the  final  consummation. 

4.  Having  imposed  upon  his  Church  the  duty  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature  under  heaven.  He  endowed  it  with  all 
the  gifts  necessary  for  the  proper  discharge  of  this  duty,  and 
promised  to  send  his  Spirit  to  render  their  preaching  effectual. 
"  He  gave  some,  Apostles  ;  and  some,  prophets  ;  and  some,  evan- 
gelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers."  Of  these  officers  some 
were  temporary,  their  peculiar  function  being  the  founding  and 
organizing  the  Church  ;  some  were  permanent.  Their  common 
object  was  the  perfecting  of  the  saints.  Their  mission  and  duties 
were  and  are  to  continue  until  "  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith, 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."  (Eph. 
iv.  11-13.)  The  duties  of  the  ministry,  therefore,  are  to  continue 
until  all,  that  is,  all  believers,  the  whole  Church,  or,  as  our  Lord 
says,  all  the  elect,  are  gathered  in  and  brought  to  the  stature  of 
perfection  in  Christ. 

5.  The  Apostles  understood  their  commission  in  this  sense  and 
entered  on  their  duties  vdth  a  clear  view  of  the  task  set  before 
them.  Our  Lord,  in  his  high-priestly  prayer  said  concerning 
them,  "As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  world,  even  so  have  I  also 
sent  them  into  the  world."  He  would  not  leave  them  alone  ;  He 
promised  to  send  the  Paraclete,  the  Helper,  who  should  bring  all 
things  to  their  remembrance ;  He  would  give  them  a  inouth  and 
a  wisdom  which  all  their  adversaries  should  be  unable  to  gainsay 
or  resist.  The  Spirit  was  to  abide  with  them  and  dwell  in  them, 
so  that  it  would  not  be  they  who  spoke,  but  the  Spirit  of  the  Fa 
tlier  who  spoke  in  them ;  that  Spirit  was  to  convince  the  world 
of    sin,  righteousness,   and  judgment ;    He  was   to  render  tlieii 

VOL.   HI.  51 


802  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

preaching  tlie  Avisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  Their 
simple  duty  was  to  teach  ;  their  commission  Avas,  "  Go  teach  all 
nations."  One  of  the  great  elements  of  the  Papal  apostasy  was 
the  idea  derived  from  paganism,  that  the  main  design  of  the 
Church  is  "  cultus,"  worship,  and  not  instruction.  The  Apostles, 
as  Peter  teaclies  (Acts  i.  22),  and  as  is  everj^where  else  taught 
in  Scripture,  were  to  be  Avitnesses  of  Christ ;  to  bear  testimony  to 
his  doctrines,  to  the  facts  of  his  life,  to  his  death,  and  especially 
to  his  resurrection,  on  which  CA^erything  else  depended.  As, 
however,  of  themselves  they  could  do  nothing,  they  Averc  required 
to  attempt  nothing,  but  to  abide  in  Jerusalem,  until  they  Avere 
imbued  Avitli  poAver  from  on  high.  When  thus  imbued  they 
began  at  once  to  declare  the  Avonderful  Avorks  of  God  to  "  Par- 
thians,  and  jNIedes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopota- 
mia, and  in  Judea,  and  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus  and  Asia,  Phry- 
gia,  and  Pamphylia,  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  parts  of  Lib^^a  about 
Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jcavs  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and 
Arabians ;  "  thus  making  the  first  proclamation  of  the  Gospel 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ  typical  of  its  design  and  destiny 
as  the  religion  of  the  Avhole  world. 

The  Apostles  accordingly  "went  everywhere;"  and  every- 
where taught  (1.)  That  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  Jcavs  only, 
but  also  of  the  Gentiles ;  that  He  is  rich  in  mercy  toAvards  all 
who  call  upon  him,  justifjdng  the  circumcision  by  faith  and  the 
uncircumcision  through  faith.  (2.)  That  the  Gospel,  therefore, 
was  designed  and  adapted  for  the  whole  Avond ;  for  all  classes  of 
men ;  not  only  for  JeAA^s  and  Gentiles,  but  also  for  the  learned 
and  unlearned,  the  young  and  the  old,  for  the  Avicked  and  the 
righteous.  It  is  the  power  of  God  to  salvation  to  ever}^  one  that 
believeth.  (3.)  Being  thus  suited  to  all  men,  it  should  be 
preached  to  all  men.  "  How  shall  they  call  on  Him  in  Avhom  they 
have  not  believed?  and  hoAV  shall  they  believe  in  Him  of 
whom  they  huA-e  not  heard?  and  hoAV  shall  they  hear  without  a 
preacher  ?  and  hoAV  shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent  ?  " 
(Ivom.  X.  14,  15.)  Paul  glorified  his  office  :  he  tlianked  God  lot 
giving  him  the  grace  to  be  tlie  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  He  said 
that  he  Avas  mider  obligation  to  preach  the  Gospel  both  to  the 
Greeks  and  to  tlio  Barbarians,  to  the  Avise  and  to  tlie  uuAvise. 
He  devotes  no  small  portion  of  his  Epistle  to  the  liomans  and  the 
greater  jvjrtion  of  the  doctrinal  part  of  that  to  the  Ei)liesians,  to 
setting  forth  the  purpose  of  God  to  bring  the  Gentiles  into  his 
Church,  and  to  make  them  equally  Avith  the  Jcavs  partakers  of 


§4.J  THE   CALLING   OF   THE   GENTILES.  803 

the  redemption  of  Christ.  He  teaches  that  the  middle  Trail  of 
partition  between  the  tAvo  had  been  broken  down,  and  that  the 
Gentiles  were  no  more  "  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God."  (Eph.  ii. 
19.)  The  great  object  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  to  show 
that  the  Gospel  is  the  substance  of  which  the  old  dispensation 
was  the  shadow ;  that  nothing  more  glorious,  real,  and  effectual 
was  to  be,  or  could  be,  so  far  as  the  salvation  of  sinners  is  con- 
cerned. The  eternal  Son  of  God,  the  brightness  of  the  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  had  assumed  our  na- 
ture to  become  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession. 
There  was  no  hope  for  those  vAio  neglected  the  great  salvation 
which  he  announced,  and  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin  remained  for 
those  who  refused  to  be  cleansed  by  his  most  precious  blood. 
The  final  revelation  of  God's  truth,  the  offering  of  the  infinitely 
meritorious  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  the  cooperation  of  the  everywhere 
present  and  almighty  Spirit  of  God  are  all  made  known  in  the 
Gospel ;  and  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of  any  other  arrangements 
for  the  salvation  of  men.  It  is  evident  that  the  Apostles  consid- 
ered the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  under  which  we  are  now  liv- 
ing, as  the  only  one  which  was  to  intervene  between  the  first  ad- 
vent of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world. 

6.  In  2  Corinthians  iii.  the  Apostle  contrasts  the  new  and  old 
dispensations,  showing  that  the  former  excels  the  latter,  (1.)  Be- 
cause the  one  used  the  ministration  of  the  letter,  the  other  uses 
that  of  the  spirit.  (2.)  Because  the  one  was  the  ministration 
of  death  and  of  condemnation,  the  other  is  the  ministration  of 
the  Spirit  and  of  righteousness ;  and  (8.)  Because  the  one  was 
transient  and  the  other  is  permanent.  "  If  that  which  is  done 
away  was  glorious,  much  more  that  which  remaineth  is  glorious." 
(verse  11.) 

7.  In  Romans  xi.  25,  Paul  teaches  that  the  national  conver- 
sion of  the  Jews  is  not  to  take  place  "  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles be  come  in."  The  7r\ypi,>fxa  rCov  I3v^v,  is  that  Avhich  makes  the 
number  of  the  Gentiles  full;  the  full  complement  which  the 
Gentiles  are  to  render  to  make  the  number  of  the  elect  complete. 

This  ingathering  of  the  heathen  is  the  special  work  of  the 
Church.  It  is  a  missionary  work.  It  was  so  understood  by  the 
Apostles.  Their  two  great  duties  were  the  propagation  and  de- 
fence of  tlio  trutlu  To  these  they  devoted  themselves.  While 
they  laboured  night  and  day,  and  travelled  hitiier  and  tliither 
through  all  parts  of  the  Roman  world,  preaching   the  Gospel; 


804  PART  IV.     Ch.   Ill  — the   second  ADVENT. 

they  laboured  no  less  assiduously  in  its  defence.  All  the  epistles 
of  the  New  Testament,  those  of  Paul,  Peter,  John,  and  James, 
are  directed  towards  the  correction  of  false  doctrine.  These  two 
duties  of  propagating  and  of  defending  the  truth,  the  Apostles 
devolved  on  their  successors.  During  the  apostolic  age  and  for 
some  time  after  it,  the  former  had  the  ascendancy  ;  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  nations,  to  bring  all  men  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  was  felt  to  be  the  special  vocation  of  the  Church.  Gradu- 
ally, and  especially  after  the  conversion  of  Constantine  and  the 
establishment  of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, the  mind  of  the  Church  was  directed  principally  to  securing 
what  had  been  attained ;  in  perfecting  its  organization  and  in 
stating  its  creed  and  defending  it  against  the  numerous  forms  of 
error  by  which  it  was  assailed. 

From  this  time  for  long  centuries  the  Church  found  its  hands 
filled  mth  its  internal  affairs.  Its  energies  were  expended  mainly 
in  three  directions,  in  building  up  a  hierarchy  with  a  supreme 
pontiff,  surrounded  by  ecclesiastical  princes,  which  sought  to  con- 
centrate in  itself  all  power  over  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men ;  in 
founding  numerous  orders  of  monks ;  and  in  the  subtleties  of 
metaphysical  discussions.  The  work  of  missions  during  this 
period  was  almost  entirely  neglected. 

When  the  Reformation  came,  the  Protestants  had  as  much  as 
they  could  do  to  live.  They  had  arrayed  against  them  every- 
where the  tremendous  power  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  in  most 
cases  all  the  power  of  the  State.  They  had  to  defend  their  doc- 
trines against  the  prejudices  and  learning  of  the  age ;  to  organize 
their  Churches,  and  alas  !  they  were  distracted  among  themselves. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the 
command,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature,"  was  almost  forgotten.  It  is  only  within  the  last 
fifty  years  that  the  Church  has  been  brought  to  feel  that  its  great 
duty  is  the  conversion  of  the  nations.  More,  probably,  has  been 
done  in  this  direction  during  the  last  lialf  century  than  during  the 
preceding  five  hmidred  years.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  a  new  effu- 
sion of  the  Spirit  like  that  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  may  be  granted 
to  the  Church  whose  fruits  shall  as  far  exceed  those  of  the  first 
effusion  as  the  millions  of  Christians  now  alive  exceed  in  number 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  souls  then  gathered  in  Jerusalem. 

That  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world  is  the  work  assigned 
the  Church  under  the  present  dispensation,  and  that  it  is  not  to 
fold  its  hands  and  await  the  second  coming  of  Christ  to  accom- 


§5.]  CONVERSION   OF   THE   JEWS.  805 

plish  that  work  for  it,  seems  evident  from  what  has  already  been 
said,  (1.)  This  is  the  work  which  Christ  commanded  his  Church 
to  undertake.  (2.)  He  furnislied  it  with  all  the  means  neces- 
sary for  its  accomplishment ;  He  revealed  the  truth  which  is 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  ;  He  instituted  the  ministry  to 
be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  promised  to  endow 
men  from  age  to  age  with  the  gifts  and  graces  necessary  for  the 
discharge  of  its  duties,  and  to  grant  them  his  constant  presence 
and  assistance.  (3.)  The  Apostles  and  the  Church  of  that  age 
so  understood  the  work  assigned  and  addressed  themselves  to  it 
with  a  devotion  and  a  success,  Avhich,  had  they  been  continued, 
the  work,  humanly  speaking,  had  long  since  been  accomplished. 
(4.)  There  is  no  intimation  in  the  New  Testament  that  the 
work  of  converting  the  world  is  to  be  effected  by  any  other  means 
than  those  now  in  use.  (5.)  It  is  to  dishonour  the  Gospel,  and 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  suppose  that  they  are  inadequate 
to  the  accomplishment  of  this  work.  (6.)  The  wonderful  suc- 
cess of  the  work  of  missions  in  our  day  goes  to  prove  the  fact 
contended  for.  Barriers  deemed  insurmountable  have  been  re- 
moved ;  facilities  of  access  and  intercourse  have  been  increased 
a  hundred  fold  ;  hundreds  of  missionary  stations  have  been  estab- 
lished in  every  part  of  the  world ;  many  thousands  of  converts 
have  been  gathered  into  churches  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
children  are  under  Christian  instruction  ;  the  foundations  of  an- 
cient systems  of  idolatry  have  been  undermined ;  nations  lately- 
heathen  have  become  Christian,  and  are  taking  part  in  sending 
the  Gospel  to  those  still  sitting  in  darkness  ;  and  nothing  seems 
wanting  to  secure  the  gathering  in  of  the  Gentiles,  but  a  revival 
of  the  missionary  spirit  of  the  apostoKc  age  in  the  churches  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

§  5.  Conversion  of  the  Jeivs. 

The  second  great  event,  which,  according  to  the  common  faith 
of  the  Church,  is  to  precede  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  is  the 
national  conversion  of  the  Jews. 

First,  that  there  is  to  be  such  a  national  conversion  may  be 
argued,  — 

1.    From   the  original   call    and    destination   of   that   people. 
God  called  Abraham  and   promised   that   through  him,  and  in 
his  seed,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.     He  en 
tered  into  a  solemn  covenant  with  him  engaging  to  be  his  God  and 
the  God  of  his  posterity  to  the  latest  generations  ;  and  that  they 


806  PART  IV.     Ch.   III. -the    second   ADVENT. 

bIiouIcI  be  his  people.  These  promises  have  been  hitherto  ful- 
filled ;  God  preserved  the  Hebrews,  although  comparatively  few 
in  numbers  amid  hostile  nations,  from  destruction  or  dispersion 
until  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham  appeared  and  accomplished 
his  redeeming  work.  This  is  an  assurance  that  the  other  prom- 
ises relating  to  this  people  shall  be  fully  accomplished. 

2.  The  second  argument  is  from  the  general  drift  of  the  Old 
Testament  concerning  the  chosen  people.  Those  prophecies  run 
through  a  regular  cycle  often  repeated  in  different  forms.  The 
peoj^le  are  rebuked  for  their  sins  and  threatened  with  severe  pun- 
ishment ;  when  that  punishment  has  been  inflicted,  and  the  na- 
tion brought  to  repentance,  there  uniformly  follow  promises  of 
restoration  and  favour.  Isaiah  predicted  that  for  their  idolatry  the 
people  should  be  carried  into  captivity,  but  that  a  remnant  should 
be  restored  to  their  own  land,  and  their  privileges  secured  to 
them  again.  Joel  and  Zechariah  predicted  that  for  their  rejection 
of  the  Messiah,  they  should  be  scattered  to  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
but  that  God  Avould  bring  them  back,  and  that  his  favour  should 
not  be  finally  withdrawn  from  them.  Thus  it  is  with  all  the 
prophets.  As  these  general  predictions  are  familiar  to  all  the 
readers  of  the  Bible,  they  need  not  be  specified. 

3.  There  are  in  the  Old  Testament  express  predictions  of  their 
national  conversion  to  faith  in  Him  whom  they  had  rejected 
and  crucified.  Thus  in  Zechariah  xii.  it  is  said  ;  "  I  will  pour 
upon  the  house  of  David  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
the  spu'it  of  grace  and  of  supplications ;  and  they  shall  look  on 
me  whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as 
one  mourneth  for  his  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for  him, 
as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his  first-born."  This  is  to  be  a 
national  conversion,  for  it  is  said  "  the  land  shall  mourn  "  every 
family  apart. 

4.  The  most  decisive  passage,  however,  bearing  on  this  subject, 
and  one  Avhich  may  be  taken  "  instar  omnium,"  is  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Paul  had  taught,  (1.)  That 
God  had  cast  off  the  Jews  as  a  nation  because  they  as  a  nation, 
represented  by  the  Sanhedrim,  the  High  Priest,  the  scribes  and  the 
Pharisees,  by  their  rulers  of  every  class,  and  by  the  popular  voice, 
had  rejected  Christ.  "  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  re- 
ceived him  not."  Therefore,  as  a  nation,  God  rejected  them. 
(2.)  This  rejection,  however,  he  here  teaches,  was  not  entire. 
There  Avas  "  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace  "  who  be- 
lieved in  Christ  and  were  received  into  his  kingdom.     (3.)  This 


§5.J  CONVERSION   OF   THE   JEWS.  807 

national  rejection  of  Israel,  as  it  was  not  entire,  so  neither  waa 
it  to  be  final.  It  was  to  continue  until  the  bringing  in  of  the 
Gentiles.  God  had  made  a  covenant  with  Abraliani  that  his 
posterity  should  be  his  people ;  and  "  the  gifts  and  calling  of 
God  are  without  repentance."  Therefore,  although  broken  off 
from  the  olive-tree  for  the  present,  they  were  to  be  grafted  in 
again.  (4.)  Thus  "all  Israel  shall  be  saved."  Whether  this 
means  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  or  the  Avliole  elect  people  of  God 
including  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  may  be  doubtful.  But  in 
either  case  it  is,  in  view  of  the  context,  a  promise  of  tlie  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews  as  a  nation.  There  is,  therefore,  to  be  a  national 
3onversion  of  the  Jews. 

Second,  this  conversion  is  to  take  place  before  the  second  ad- 
vent of  Clirist.  This  the  Apostle  teaches  when  he  says,  that  the 
salvation  of  the  Gentiles  was  designed  to  provoke  the  Jews  to 
jealousy,  verse  11;  and  that  the  mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles 
was  to  be  the  means  of  the  Jews  obtaining  mercy,  verse  31.  The 
rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  occasion  of  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  ;  and  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  is  to  be  the  occasion 
of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  On  this  point  Luthardt  says  : 
"As  our  Lord  (Matt,  xxiii.  39)  said :  '  Ye  shall  not  see  me  hence- 
forth, till  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometli  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord '  —  so  it  is  certain  that,  when  Jesus  comes,  who  will  be 
visible  to  all  the  world,  as  the  lightning  which  cometli  out  of  the 
east,  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west,  whom  all  eyes,  even  of 
those  who  pierced  Him  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  see 
(Rev.  i.  7  ;  Zech.  xii.  10), — the  Jews  must  have  been  converted 

and  have  become  a  Christian  nation And  further  when 

Peter  (Acts  iii.  19-21)  exhorts  to  repentance  and  conversion 
until  the  times  of  refreshing  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  shall 
come  ;  so  it  appears  to  be  to  me  beyond  all  doubt  that  tlie  con- 
version of  Israel  is  to  precede  the  Second  Advent  of  Clirist."  ^ 

Are  the  Jeivs  to  he  restored  to  their  oivn  Land? 

According  to  one  view,  the  Jews  after  their  conversion  are  to 
be  restored  to  the  land  of  their  fathers  and  there  constituted  a 
distinct  nation.  According  to  another,  their  restoration  to  their 
own  land  is  to  precede  their  conversion.  And  according  to  a 
third  view  there  is  to  be  no  such  restoration,  but  they  are  to  be 
amalgamated  with  the  great  body  of  Christians  as  they  were  in 
the  times  of  the  Aj)ostles. 

A  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dinqen,  pp.  71,  72. 


808  PART   IV.     Ch.   hi.— THF   second   ADVENT. 

In  favour  of  a  literal  restoration  it  is  urged,  — 

1.  That  it  is  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  most  ex- 
press terms.  Luthardt  says  a  man  must  "  break"  the  Scriptures 
who  denies  such  restoration.  To  him  it  is  certain  and  undeniable 
that  the  Jews  are  to  be  brought  back  to  their  own  land  and  re- 
established as  a  nation.^ 

2.  It  is  argued  that  the  promise  of  God  to  Abraham  has  never 
yet  been  fully  accomplished.  God  promised  to  give  to  him  and  to 
his  seed  after  him  all  the  land  from  the  river  of  Egypt  (under- 
stood to  be  the  Nile)  to  the  river  Euphrates.  They  were,  how- 
ever, during  all  their  national  history  pent  up  in  the  narrow  strip 
between  the  Jordan  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  except  for  a 
while  when  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  dwelt  on  the  eastern  side 
of  Jordan.  As  the  promise  cannot  fail,  the  time  must  yet  come 
when  the  whole  region  granted  to  Abraham  shall  be  occupied  by 
his  descendants. 

3.  A  presumptive  argument  is  drawn  from  the  strange  preser- 
vation of  the  Jews  through  so  many  centuries  as  a  distinct  people. 
They  have  often  been  compared  to  a  river  flowing  through  the 
ocean  without  mingling  with  its  waters.  There  must  be  some 
purpose  in  this  wonderful  preservation.  That  people  must  have 
a  future  corresponding  to  its  marvellous  past. 

4.  Reference  is  also  made  to  the  fact  that  the  land  promised  to 
the  Jews  is  now  empty,  as  though  waiting  for  their  return.  It 
once  teemed  with  a  population  counted  by  millions  ;  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  it  may  not  in  the  future  be  as  densely  inhabited. 

The  arguments  against  the  assumed  restoration  of  the  Jews  to 
the  Holy  Land  are, — 

1.  The  argument  from  the  ancient  prophecies  is  proved  to  be 
invalid,  because  it  would  prove  too  much.  If  those  prophecies 
foretell  a  literal  restoration,  they  foretell  that  the  temple  is  to  be 
rebuilt,  the  priesthood  restored,  sacrifices  again  offered,  and  that 
the  whole  Mosaic  ritual  is  to  be  observed  in  all  its  details.  (See 
the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  from  the  thirty-seventh  chapter  on- 
ward.) We  know,  however,  from  the  New  Testament  that  the 
Old  Testament  service  has  been  finally  abolished  ;  there  is  to  be 
no  new  temple  made  with  hands  ;  no  other  priest  but  the  high- 
priest  of  our  profession  ;  and  no  other  sacrifice  but  that  already 
offered  upon  the  cross.  It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  char- 
acter of  the  Gospel  that  there  should  be  a  renewed  inauguration 
of  Judaism  within  the  pale  of  the  Christian  Church.    If  it  be  said 

1  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  p.  71. 


§5.]  CONVEKSION   OF   THE  JEWS.  809 

that  the  Jews  are  to  return  to  their  own  land  as  Jews,  and  there 
restore  their  temple  and  its  service,  and  then  be  converted;  it 
may  be  answered  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  prophetic  repre- 
sentations. They  are  to  be  brought  to  repentance  and  faith,  and 
to  be  restored  to  their  land,  or,  to  use  the  figure  employed  by  the 
Apostle,  grafted  again  into  their  own  olive-tree,  because  of  their 
repentance.  When  Christ  comes,  "  He  shall  send  his  angels  with 
a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  together  his 
elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other." 
(Matt.  xxiv.  31.)  But  further  than  this,  in  Zechariah  xiv.,  it  is 
predicted  that  after  the  restoration,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
"  shall  go  up  from  year  to  year  to  worship  the  King,  the  LoRD 
of  hosts,  and  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles."  In  Isaiah  Ixvi. 
22,  23,  it  is  said,  "  As  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  which 
I  will  make,  shall  remain  before  me,  saith  the  LoRD,  so  shall 
your  seed  and  your  name  remain.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
from  one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from  one  Sabbath  to  another, 
shall  all  flesh  come  to  worship  before  me,  saith  the  Lord."  The 
literal  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  relating  to 
the  restoration  of  Israel  and  the  future  kingdom  of  Christ,  cannot 
by  possibility  be  carried  out ;  and  if  abandoned  in  one  point,  it 
cannot  be  pressed  in  regard  to  others. 

2.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  ancient  prophets  in  predicting  the 
events  of  the  Messianic  period  and  the  future  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, borrowed  their  language  and  imagery  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament institutions  and  usages.  The  Messiah  is  often  called 
David  ;  his  church  is  called  Jerusalem,  and  Zion ,  his  people  are 
called  Israel ;  Canaan  was  the  land  of  their  inheritance  ;  the  loss 
of  God's  favour  was  expressed  by  saying  that  they  forfeited  that 
inheritance,  and  restoration  to  his  favour  was  denoted  by  a  return 
to  the  promised  land.  This  usage  is  so  pervading  that  the  con- 
viction produced  by  it  on  the  minds  of  Christians  is  indehble.  To 
them,  Zion  and  Jerusalem  are  the  Church  and  not  the  city  made 
with  hands.  To  interpret  all  that  the  ancient  prophets  say  of 
Jerusalem  of  an  earthly  city,  and  all  that  is  said  of  Israel  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  would  be  to  bring  down  heaven  to  earth,  and  to 
transmute  Christianity  into  the  corrupt  Judaism  of  the  apostolic 
age. 

3.  Accordingly  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  taught,  not  in 
poetic  imagery,  but  didactically,  in  simple,  unmistakable  prose, 
that  believers  are  the  seed  of  Abraham ;  they  are  his  sons  ;  his 
heirs ;  they  are  the  triie  Israel.    (See  especially  Romans  iv.  and  ix. 


810  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.— THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

and  Galatians  iii.)  It  is  not  natural  descent,  that  makes  a  man 
a  child  of  Abraham.  "  They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
these  are  not  the  children  of  God  ;  but  the  children  of  the  prom- 
ise are  counted  for  the  seed."  (Rom.  ix.  8.)  The  Apostle  asserts 
that  the  pi-omises  are  made  not  to  the  Israel  Kara  a-dpKa,  but  to  the 
Israel  Kara  Trvfvjxa.  He  says  in  the  name  of  believers,  "  We  are  the 
circumcision."  (Phil.  iii.  3.)  "  We  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  (Gal.  iii.  29.)  The  promise  to  Abra- 
ham that  he  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  did  not  mean 
merely  that  his  natural  descendants  should  be  very  numerous ;  but 
that  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  have  the  right  to  call  him 
father  (Rom.  iv.  17)  ;  for  he  is  "  the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve, though  they  be  not  circumcised."  (Rom.  iv.  11.)  It  would 
turn  the  Gospel  upside  down ;  not  only  the  Apostle's  argument 
but  his  whole  system  would  collapse,  if  what  the  Bible  says  of 
Israel  should  be  understood  of  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham to  the  exclusion  of  his  spiritual  children. 

4.  The  idea  that  the  Jews  are  to  be  restored  to  their  own  land 
and  there  constituted  a  distinct  nation  in  the  Christian  Church, 
is  inconsistent  not  only  with  the  distinct  assertions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  also  with  its  plainest  and  most  important  doctrines. 
It  is  asserted  over  and  over  again  that  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion between  Jew  and  Gentile  has  been  broken  down  ;  that  God 
has  made  of  the  two  one  ;  that  Gentile  believers  are  fellow-citLzens 
of  the  saints  and  members  of  the  household  of  God ;  that  they 
are  built  up  together  with  the  Jews  into  one  temple.  (Eph.  ii. 
11-22.)  "  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  :  for  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  (Gal.  iii. 
27-29.)  There  could  not  be  a  more  distinct  assertion  that  all  dif- 
ference between  the  Jew  and  Gentile  has  been  done  away  within 
the  pale  of  the  Christian  Church.  This,  however,  is  not  a  mere 
matter  of  assertion,  it  is  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Nothing  is  plainer  from  the  teachings  of  Scripture  than 
that  all  believers  are  one  body  in  Christ,  that  all  are  the  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  virtue  of  their  union  with  Him  are 
joint  and  equal  j^artakers  of  the  benefits  of  his  redemption  ;  that 
if  there  be  any  difference  between  them,  it  is  not  in  virtue  of 
national  or  social  distinctions,  but  solely  of  individual  character 
and  devotion.     That  we  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus,  is  a  doctrine 


§5]  CONVERSION   OF   THE  JEWS.  8ll 

which  prechides  the  possibiHty  of  the  preeminence  assigned  to  the 
Jews  in  the  theory  of  which  their  restoration  to  their  own  land, 
and  their  national  individuality  are  constituent  elements. 

5.  The  Apostles  uniformly  acted  on  this  principle.  They  rec- 
ognize no  future  for  the  Jews  in  wliich  the  Gentile  Christians 
are  not  to  participate.  As  under  the  old  dispensation  prosel^'^tes 
from  the  heathen  were  incorporated  with  the  Jewish  people  and 
all  distinction  between  them  and  those  who  were  Jews  by  birth, 
was  lost,  so  it  was  under  the  Gospel.  Gentiles  and  Jews  were 
united  in  undistinguished  and  undistinguishable  membership  in 
the  same  Church.  And  so  it  has  continued  to  the  present  day  ; 
the  two  streams,  Jewish  and  Gentile,  united  in  the  Apostolic 
Church,  have  flowed  on  as  one  great  river  through  all  ages.  As 
this  was  by  divine  ordinance,  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  they 
are  to  be  separated  in  the  future. 

6.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land  and  their 
continued  national  individuality,  is  generally  associated  with  the 
idea  that  they  are  to  constitute  a  sort  of  peerage  in  the  Church  of 
the  future,  exalted  in  prerogative  and  dignity  above  their  fellow 
believers  ;  and  this  again  is  more  or  less  intimately  connected 
with  the  doctrine  that  what  the  Church  of  the  present  is  to  look 
forward  to  is  the  establishment  of  a  kingdom  on  earth  of  great 
worldly  splendour  and  prosperity.  For  neither  of  these  is  there 
any  authority  in  the  didactic  portions  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  intimation  that  any  one  class  of  Christians,  or  Chris- 
tians of  any  one  nation  or  race,  are  to  be  exalted  over  their 
brethren  ;  neither  is  there  the  slightest  suggestion  that  the  future 
kingdom  of  Christ  is  to  be  of  earthly  splendour.  Not  only  are 
these  expectations  without  any  foundation  in  the  teachings  of  the 
Apostles,  but  they  are  also  inconsistent  with  the  whole  spirit  of 
their  instructions.  They  did  not  exhort  believers  to  look  forward 
to  a  reign  of  wealth  and  power,  but  to  long  after  complete  con- 
formity to  the  image  of  Christ,  and  to  pray  for  the  coming  of 
that  kingdom  which  is  righteousness,  joy,  and  peace  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Any  Christian  would  rejoice  to  be  a  servant  of  Paul,  or 
of  John,  of  a  martyr,  or  of  a  poor  worn-out  missionary ;  but  to 
be  servant  to  a  Jew,  merely  because  he  is  a  Jew,  is  a  different 
affair ;  unless  indeed  such  should  prove  to  be  the  will  of  Christ ; 
then  such  service  would  be  an  honour.  It  is  as  much  opposed 
to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  that  preeminence  in  Christ's  kingdom 
should  be  adjudged  to  any  man  or  set  of  men  on  the  ground  of 
natural  descent,  as  on  the  ground  of  superior  stature,  physicaj 
strength,  or  wealth. 


812  PART   IV.     Ch.   III.  — the   second   ADVENT. 

The  Scriptures,  then,  as  they  have  been  generally  understood 
in  the  Church,  teach  that  before  the  Second  Advent,  there  is  to  be 
the  ingathering  of  the  heathen  ;  that  the  Gospel  must  be  preached 
to  all  nations  ;  and  also  that  there  is  to  be  a  national  conversion 
of  the  Jews  ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this  that  either  all 
the  heathen  or  all  the  Jews  are  to  become  true  Christians.  In 
many  cases  the  conversion  may  be  merely  nominal.  There  will 
probably  enough  remain  unchanged  in  heart  to  be  the  germ  of  that 
persecuting  power  which  shall  bring  about  those  days  of  tribula- 
tion Avhich  the  Bible  seems  to  teach  are  to  immediately  precede 
the  coming  of  the  Lord. 

§  6.    Antichrist. 

That  Antichrist  is  to  appear  before  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
is  express^fjJly  asserted  by  the  Apostle  in  2  Thessalonians  ii.  1-3, 
"  We  beseech  you  ....  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind,  or 

be  troubled  ....  as  that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand For 

that  day  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away  first, 
and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition."  This  is 
clear  ;  but  as  to  who  or  what  Antichrist  is,  there  is  no  httle  diver- 
sity of  opinion. 

1.  Some  understand  by  that  term  any  antichristian  spirit,  or 
power,  or  person.  The  Apostle  John  says,  "  Little  children,  it  is 
the  last  time :  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,^ 
even  now  are  there  many  antichrists  ;  whereby  we  know  that  it 
is  the  last  time  ....  Who  is  a  liar  but  he  that  denieth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  ?  He  is  antichrist,  that  denieth  the  Father 
and  the  Son."  (1  John  ii.  18  and  22.)  And  again,  "  Every 
spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh, 
is  not  of  God :  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist,  whereof  ye 
have  heard  that  it  should  come ;  and  even  now  already  is  it 
in  the  world."  (iv.  3.)  And  in  2  John  7,  it  is  said,  "  Many  de- 
ceivers are  entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist 
(6  TrAaios  Kol  6  di/TtxptcTTos,  the  deceiver  and  the  antichrist)."  Thus 
our  Lord  had  predicted,  "  There  shall  arise  false  Christs,  and 
false  prophets,  and  shall  show  great  signs  and  wonders  ;  insomuch 
that,  if  it  were  possible,  they  shall  deceive  the  very  elect."  (Matt. 
xxiv.  24.)  And  the  Apostle  Paul  in  1  Timothy  iv.  1,  says: 
"  The  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times  some  shall 
depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits,  and  doctrines 
of  devils."     These  passages  refer  to  a  marked  characteristic  of 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  818 

the  period  between  the  apostolic  age  and  the  second  coming  of 
Christ.  Tliere  were  to  be  many  anticlirists ;  many  manifestations 
of  malignant  opposition  to  the  person  and  to  the  work  of  Christ ; 
many  attempts  to  cast  off  his  anthority  and  to  overthrow  his 
kingdom . 

2.  Besides  this  general  reference  to  the  antichristian  spirit 
which  was  to  manifest  itself  in  different  forms  and  with  different 
degrees  of  intensity,  many  believe  that  there  is  yet  to  be  a  ]3er- 
son,  in  whom  the  jjower  of  the  world  shall  be  concentrated,  and 
who  will  exert  all  his  energies  to  overthrow  Christianity,  and  to 
usurp  the  place  of  Christ  on  earth.  This  is  the  Antichrist  of 
prophecy ;  of  whom  it  is  assumed  that  Daniel,  Paul,  and  St. 
John  in  the  Apocalypse  speak.  This  is  the  view  generally  adopted 
by  Romanists  and  by  many  eminetit  evangelical  Protestant  theolo- 
gians. 

3.  The  common  opinion,  however,  among  Protestants  is,  that 
the  prophecies  concerning  Antichrist  have  special  reference  to  the 
papacy.  This  conviction  is  founded  principally  on  the  remark- 
able prediction  contained  in  Paul's  second  epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians.  The  Apostle  knew  that  the  Thessalonians,  in  common 
with  other  Christians  of  the  early  Church,  would  be  exposed  to 
grievous  persecutions  ;  to  comfort  them  under  their  sufferings,  to 
give  them  patience  and  to  sustain  their  faith,  he  referred  to  the 
promised  second  coming  of  Christ.  When  the  Lord  should  come 
all  their  sorrows  would  be  ended ;  those  who  in  the  meantime 
had  fallen  asleep,  would  not  lose  their  part  in  the  blessing  of  his 
second  advent.  For  "  we  which  are  alive,  and  remain  unto  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  shall  not  prevent  them  which  are  asleep.  For 
the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the 
voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead 
in  Christ  shall  rise  first :  then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain 
shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air :  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord.  Where- 
fore, comfort  one  another  with  these  words."  (1  Thess.  iv.  15-17.) 
These  words  it  seems  had  been  perverted  and  misinterpreted,  by 
some  who  were  "  disorderly,  working  not  at  all,  but  '*  were  "  busy- 
bodies  ;"  unsettling  the  minds  of  the  people,  turning  them  off 
from  present  duties,  as  though  the  day  of  the  Lord  were  at  hand. 
To  correct  this  abuse,  the  Apostle  writes  his  second  epistle.  He 
does  not  set  the  doctrine  of  the  second  advent  in  the  background, 
or  say  anything  to  weaken  its  power  as  a  source  of  consolation  tc 
the  suffermg  believers.     On  the  contrary,  he  sets  forth  the  glory 


814  PART  IV.     Ch.  III.  — the   second   ADVENT. 

of  that  advent  and  the  richness  of  the  blessings  by  which  it  should 
be  attended,  in  more  glowing  terms  than  ever  before.  "  We 
om-selves,"  he  says,  "  glory  in  you  in  the  churches  of  God,  for 
your  patience  and  faith  in  all  your  persecutions  and  tribulations 
that  ye  endure  ;  which  is  a  manifest  token  of  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God,  that  ye  may  be  counted  worthy  of  the  kingdom  of 
Gody  for  which  ye  also  suffer  ;  seeing  it  is  a  righteous  thing  with 
God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble  you  ;  and  to 
you,  who  are  troubled,  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not 
the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  .Jesus  Christ :  .  .  .  .  when  he  shall  come 
to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  in  all  them  that 
believe."  (2  Thess.  i.  4-10.)  All  this  stands  true.  Nevertheless 
tlie  Thossaloniaiis  were  not  to  be  deceived.  The  great  day  of  de- 
liverance was  not  at  hand.  They  had  much  to  do,  and  much  to  suf- 
fer before  that  day  should  come.  The  time  of  the  second  advent 
was  not  revealed.  In  his  first  epistle  he  had  said,  "  Of  the  times 
and  the  seasons,  brethren,  ye  have  no  need  that  I  write  unto 
you.  For  yourselves  know  perfectly  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so 
Cometh  as  a  thief  in  the  night."  (1  Thess.  v.  1,  2.)  That  being 
conceded,  they  should  know  that  great  things  must  occur  before 
that  day  could  come.  First,  there  was  to  be  a  great  apostasy. 
As  the  Church  was  then  in  its  infancy,  and  had  just  begun  to 
make  progress  among  the  nations,  such  language  naturally'  prer 
supposes  a  much  more  extended  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  than 
had  as  yet  taken  place.  The  second  event  that  was  to  precede 
the  second  advent  was  the  coming  of  Antichrist,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  man  of  sin  was  to  be  revealed. 

The  first  question,  to  be  determined  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
prophecy,  is,  Whether  Antichrist  is  a  particular  individual,  or  an 
institution,  a  power,  or  a  corporation.  Protestants  generally  adopt 
the  latter  view  ;  because  they  do  not  regard  any  one  pope,  but 
the  papacy,  as  the  Antichrist  of  Scripture.  In  favour  of  this  view 
it  may  be  urged,  (1.)  That  it  is  according  to  the  analogy. of 
prophecy  to  speak  of  nations,  institutions,  or  kingdoms,  as  indi- 
viduals. In  Daniel,  the  ten  kings  are  ten  kingdoms  or  dynas- 
ties ;  the  several  beasts  which  he  saw  in  vision,  were  not  tlic 
symbols  of  particular  men,  but  of  nations.  When  therefore  tlie 
Apostle  speaks  of  Antichrist  as  "  the  man  of  sin,"  and  "  the  son  of 
perdition,"  it  is  perfectly  consistent  with  Scriptural  usage  to  un- 
derstand him  to  refer  to  an  order  of  men,  or  to  an  institution. 


§  6.]  ANTICHKIST.  815 

(2.)  The  work  assigned  to  Antichrist  in  prophecy,  extends  over 
far  too  long  a  period  to  be  accomplished  by  one  man.  (3.)  Those 
who  insist  that  the  antichrist  here  predicted,  is  an  individual  man, 
are  forced  to  admit  that  what  is  said  in  2  Thessalonians  ii.  7 
("  He  who  now  letteth,  will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the 
way  ")  is  to  be  understood  of  a  power.  It  is  generally  under- 
stood of  the  Roman  power.  Luthardt  understands  it  of  the  moral 
power  which  sustains  the  right,  and  therefore  is  opposed  to  the 
reckless  disregard  of  all  law,  which  is  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  Antichrist.  It  is  true  that  he  supposes  that  reference  is  also 
made  to  one  of  the  guardian  or  protecting  angels  spoken  of  by 
the  prophet  Daniel.  But  such  an  angel  is  not  to  be  "  taken  out 
of  the  way."  And  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  or  in  Paul's 
writings  anywhere  to  justify  the  assumption  that  reference  is  here 
had  to  any  angelic  personage. 

The  second  question  is.  Whether  the  antichrist  here  described 
is  an  ecclesiastical  or  civil  power  ;  whether  it  is  to  arise  in  jbhe 
Church  or  in  the  world.  The  considerations  which  are  in  favour 
of  the  former  of  these  assumptions  are,  — 

1.  That  the  designations  "man  of  sin"  and  "son  of  perdi- 
tion "  have  a  religious  import,  and  are  more  appropriate  to  an 
ecclesiastical  than  to  a  worldly  power  or  potentate. 

2.  Antichrist  was  to  have  the  seat  of  his  power  in  the  "  tem- 
ple of  God."  It  is  there  he  sits.  This  seems  clearly  to  indi- 
cate that  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  usurping,  tyrannical,  and  per- 
secuting power,  that  is  here  depicted.  By  the  temple  of  God 
in  this  passage  is  generally  understood  the  Church  which  is  so 
often  elsewhere  called,  and  especially  b}^  Paul,  God's  temple. 
Some,  however,  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  the  literal  tem- 
ple in  Jerusalem ;  but  this  supposes,  (a.)  That  the  Jews  are  to 
be  restored  to  their  own  land.  (5.)  That  they  are  to  be  re- 
stored as  Jews,  or  unconverted,  and  that  the  temple  is  to  be  there 
rebuilt.  (<?.)  That  the  Thessalonians  knew  all  this  and  would 
understand  the  Apostle  as  referring  to  the  temple  made  with 
hands ;  which  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable. 

3.  His  coming  is  after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power 
and  signs  and  lying  wonders.  This  is  not  the  way  in  which 
worldly  potentates  gain  their  power;  they  rely  on  force.  But 
this  is  the  way,  as  though  traced  by  the  pen  of  history  rather 
than  by  the  pencil  of  prophecy,  in  which  the  papacy  has  attained 
and  maintained  its  fearful  ascendancy  in  the  world.  Its  power 
has  been  achieved  mainlv  bv  fraud,  "  bv  the    deceivableness  of 


Wt)  PART   IV.     Ch.   III.  — the  second   ADVENT. 

unrighteousness  ;  "  by  forged  documents  and  false  pretences  ;  by 
claiming  that  Peter  was  made  primate  over  the  whole  Church 
and  the  vicar  or  plenipotentiary  of  Christ  on  earth ;  that  he  was 
the  bishop  of  Rome ;  that  his  successors  in  that  office  were  his 
successors  in  that  primacy  ;  and  that  as  the  vicar  of  Christ  he  was 
superior  to  all  earthly  potentates,  not  merely  as  the  spiritual  is 
above  the  temporal,  but  as  lord  of  the  conscience,  authorized  to 
decide  what  was  right  and  what  Avas  wrong  for  them  to  do  in  all 
their  relations  as  men  and  as  rulers ;  which  is  a  claim  of  absolute 
dominion.  This,  however,  is  a  small  matter  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  things  of  this  world.  It  was  to  the  mass  of  the  people  of 
little  moment  whether  their  absolute  sovereigu  was  a  bishojo  or 
a  prince  ;  whether  he  resided  at  Rome  or  in  Paris,  whether  his 
authority  extended  over  one  nation  or  over  all  nations.  It  is  the 
false  claim  of  the  papacy  to  have  supreme  autliority  over  the  faith 
of  men,  to  decide  for  them  what  they  must  believe  on  the  pain  of 
eternal  perdition,  that  is  the  most  fearful  power  ever  assumed  by 
sinful  men.  To  this  is  to  be  added  the  false  claim  to  the  power 
to  forgive  sin.  This  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  twofold  power,  an- 
swering to  the  twofold  penalty  attached  to  sin,  namely,  the  eternal 
penalty  as  a  violation  of  the  divine  law,  and  the  penances  still 
due  after  the  remission  of  the  eternal  penalty,  as  satisfactions  to 
divine  justice.  The  former  can  be  obtained  only  through  the 
intervention  or  absolution  of  the  priest ;  and  the  latter  can  be  im- 
posed or  remitted  at  the  discretion  of  the  Church.  This  includes 
power  over  purgatory,  the  pains  of  which  are  represented  as 
frightful  and  of  indefinite  duration.  These  pains  the  pope  and 
his  subordinates  falsely  claim  the  power  to  alleviate  or  remit. 
These  claims  have  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world.  If 
such  pretensions  as  these  do  not  constitute  the  power  which 
makes  them  Antichrist,  then  nothiug  more  remains.  Any  future 
antichrist  that  may  arise  must  be  a  small  affair  compared  to  the 
papacy. 

Then  again,  the  Apostle  tells  us,  these  portentous  claims,  these 
anrighteous  deceits,  were  to  be  supported  by  "  signs  and  lying 
wonders."  These  have  seldom,  if  ever,  been  appealed  to  by 
worldly  powers  to  support  their  pretensions.  They  ever  have 
been  and  still  are  among  the  chief  supports  of  the  papacy. 
There  is  not  a  false  doctrine  which  it  teaches,  or  a  false  assump- 
tion which  it  makes,  Avhich  is  not  sustained  by  "  lying  wonders." 
Its  whole  history  is  a  historj^  of  apparitions  of  the  Virgin  INIary 
or  of  saints  and    angels ;    and  of  miracles  of  every  possible  de- 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  817 

scription  from  the  most  stupendous  to  the  most  absurd.  It  has 
ever  acted  on  the  principle  "  popuhis  vult  decipi,"  and  that  it  is 
right  to  deceive  them  for  their  own  good,  or,  the  good  of  the 
Church.  The  whole  system,  so  far  as  it  is  distinctive,^  is  a  sys- 
tem of  falsehood,  or  false  pretensions,  supported  by  deceit. 

4.  Antichrist  is  to  be  a  persecuting  power.  Is  not  this  true  of 
the  papacy  ?  It  has  been  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints.  It 
not  only  persecutes,  but  it  justifies  persecution,  and  avows  to  this 
day  its  purpose  to  enforce  its  dominion  by  the  rack  and  the  stake 
wherever  it  has  the  power.  This  is  involved  in  its  justification 
of  the  past,  and  in  its  making  it  a  duty  to  suppress  every  form 
of  religion  but  that  of  Rome.  The  thirty  years'  war  in  Germany ; 
the  persistent  attempts  to  exterminate  the  Piedmontese ;  the 
massacres  by  the  Duke  of  Alva  in  the  Netherlands  ;  the  horrors  of 
the  inquisition  in  Spain  ;  the  dragonnades  and  the  massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew  in  France,  over  which  Te  Deums  were  sung  in 
Rome,  show  that  the  people  of  God  can  hardly  have  more  to 
suffer  under  any  future  antichrist  than  they  have  already  suffered, 
and  perhaps  have  yet  to  suffer,  under  the  papacy. 

5.  Antichrist,  according  to  the  Apostle,  was  to  oppose  and  ex- 
alt himself  above  all  that  is  called  God  or  is  worshipped  ;  "  so 
that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  shewing  himself 
that  he  is  God."  This  is  true  of  no  worldly  power.  It  was  not 
true  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  is  regarded  as  the  type  whence 
the  prophetic  portrait  of  Antichrist  was  drawn.  It  was  not  true 
of  any  of  the  Roman  emperors.  Some  of  them  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  enrolled  among  the  thousand  gods  of  the  Pantheon ; 
but  this  falls  very  far  short  of  the  description  here  given.  It  is, 
however,  all  true  of  the  papacy,  and  it  is  true  of  no  other  power 
which  has  yet  appeared  upon  earth.  Paul  does  not  concern  him- 
self with  theories,  but  with  facts.  It  is  not  that  the  popes  openly 
profess  to  be  superior  to  God  ;  or,  that  in  theory  they  claim  to 
be  more  than  men.  It  is  the  practical  operation  of  the  system 
which  he  describes.  The  actual  facts  are  first,  that  the  popes 
claim  the  honour  that  is  due  to  God  alone ;  secondly,  that  they 
assume  the  powers  which  are  his  exclusive  prerogatives ;  and 
thirdly,  that  they  supersede  the  authority  of  God,  putting  their 
own  in  its  place.     It  is  thus  they  exalt  themselves  above  God. 

J-  This  qualification  is  necessary.  Papists  of  course  hold  the  truths  of  natural  religion; 
und  man}'  of  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  This  is  to  be  acknowledged.  Wa 
are  not  to  deny  that  truth  is  truth,  because  held  by  Romanists  :  nor  are  we  to  deny,  that 
where  truth  is,  there  may  be  its  fruits.  While  condemning  Papacy,  Protestants  can,  and 
do  joyfully  admit  that  there  are  among  Romanists  such  godly  men  as  St.  Bernard,  F^n^lon, 
and  Pascal,  and  doubtless  thousands  more  known  only  unto  God. 
VOL.  III.  52 


818  PART   IV.     Cii.   Ill  — THE   SECOND  ADVENT 

They  assume  the  honour  which  belongs  to  God  not  merely  by 
claiming  to  be  the  vicars  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  by  allowing  them- 
selves to  be  addressed  as  Lord  and  God,  but  by  exacting  the  sub- 
mission of  the  reason,  the  conscience,  and  the  life,  to  their  author- 
ity. This  is  the  highest  tribute  wdiich  a  creature  can  render  the 
Creator  ;  and  this  the  popes  claim  to  be  their  due  from  all  man- 
kind. They  claim  divine  prerogatives  as  infallible  teachers  on  all 
questions  of  faith  and  practice,  and  as  having  the  power  to  forgive 
sin.  And  they  exalt  their  autliority  above  that  of  God  by  practi- 
cally setting  aside  his  word,  and  substituting  their  decrees  and 
what  they  put  forth  as  the  teachings  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  sim- 
ple and  undeniable  fact  that  in  all  countries  under  the  effective 
dominion  of  the  pope,  the  Scriptures  are  inaccessible  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  faith  of  the  masses  reposes  not  on  what  the  Bible 
teaches,  but  on  what  the  Church  declares  to  be  true. 

Even  such  a  writer  as  John  Henry  Newman,  in  an  essay  written 
before  his  formal  adhesion  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  uses  such  lan- 
guage as  the  folio  whig  :  The  question  is,  "  Has  Christ,  or  has  He 
not,  appointed  a  body  representative  of  Him  in  earth  during  his 
absence  ?  "  This  question  he  answers  in  the  affirmative,  and  says, 
"  Not  even  the  proof  of  our  Lord's  divinity  is  plainer  than  that 
of  the  Church's  commission.  Not  even  the  promises  to  David  or 
to  Solomon  more  evidently  belong  to  Christ,  than  those  to  Israel, 
or  Jerusalem,  or  Sion,  belong  to  the  Church.  Not  even  Daniel's 
prophecies  are  more  exact  to  the  letter,  than  those  which  invest 
the  Chm'ch  with  powers  which  Protestants  consider  Babylonish. 
Nay,  holy  Daniel  himself  is  in  no  small  measure  employed  on 
this  very  subject.  He  it  is  who  announces  a  fifth  kingdom,  like 
'  a  stone  cut  out  without  hands,'  which  '  broke  in  pieces  and  con- 
sumed '  all  former  kingdoms,  but  was  itself  to  '  stand  forever.' 
and  to  become  '  a  great  mountain,'  and  '  to  fill  the  whole  earth.' 
He  it  is  also  who  prophesies  that  '  the  Saints  of  the  most  High 
shall  take  the  kingdom  and  possess  the  kingdom  forever.'  He 
'  saw  in  the  night  visions  and  behold  one  like  to  the  Son  of  Man 
came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of 
Days,  and  there  was  given  Him  dominion  and  glory  and  a  king- 
dom, that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  Him.' 
Such  too  is  Isaiah's  prophecy,  '  Out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the 
law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem,  and  He  shall 
judge  among  the  nations  and  rebuke  many  people.'  Now  Christ 
Himself  was  to  depart  from  the  earth.  He  cou'd  not  then  in  hia 
own  person  be  intended  in  these  great  prophecies ;  if  He  acted 


§6.]  ANTICHRIST.  819 

it  must  be  by  delegacy."  ^  According  to  the  RomaDists,  there- 
fore, these  prophecies,  relating  to  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  refer 
to  the  papacy.  It  is  the  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without 
hands,  which  is  to  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  other  king- 
doms ;  which  is  to  stand  forever ;  which  is  to  fill  the  whole  earth ; 
to  which  is  given  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all 
people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve.  If  this  be  not  to  put 
itself  in  the  place  of  God,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  prophecies 
concerning  Antichrist  can  ever  be  fulfilled. 

No  more  conclusive  argument  to  prove  that  the  papacy  is  Anti- 
christ, could  be  constructed,  than  that  furnished  by  Dr.  New- 
man, himseK  a  Romanist.  According  to  him  the  prophecies 
respecting  the  glory,  the  exaltation,  the  power,  and  the  universal 
dominion  of  Christ,  have  their  fulfilment  in  the  popes.  But  who 
is  Antichrist,  but  the  man  that  puts  himself  in  the  place  of  Christ ; 
claimmg  the  honour  and  the  power  which  belong  to  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh,  for  himself  ?  Whoever  does  this  is  Antichrist,  in  the 
highest  form  m  which  he  can  appear. 

6.  Another  argument  to  prove  that  the  Antichrist  described  by 
the  Apostle  is  an  ecclesiastical  power  is  that  his  appearance  is  the 
consequence  of  a  great  apostasy.  That  the  apostasy  spoken  of  is  a 
defection  from  the  truth  is  plain  from  the  Scriptural  usage  of  the 
term  (Acts  xxi.  21),  and  from  the  connection  in  which  it  here 
occurs.  When  God  brought  the  heathen  upon  the  people  as  con- 
querors, in  punishment  of  their  idolatry,  their  sufferings  were  a 
judicial  consequence  of  their  apostasy,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that 
the  power  of  Chaldean  or  Egyptian  oppressors  was  the  fruit  of 
their  defection  from  the  truth.  In  this  case,  however.  Antichrist 
is  represented  as  the  ultimate  development  of  the  predicted  apos- 
tasy. If  a  simple  minister  should  claim  to  be  a  priest,  and  then 
one  priest  assume  dominion  over  many  priests,  and  then  one  pre- 
late over  other  prelates,  and  then  one  over  all,  and  then  that  one 
claim  to  be  the  ruler  of  the  whole  world  as  vicar  of  Christ, 
clothed  with  his  authority,  so  that  the  prophecy  that  all  peojDles, 
nations,  and  languages  should  serve  the  Son  of  Man,  is  fulfilled 
in  him,  then  indeed  we  should  have  a  regular  development,  from 
the  first  step  to  the  last.  Bishop  Ellicott,  though  believing  Anti- 
christ to  be  "  one  single  personal  being,  as  truly  man  as  He 
whom  he  impiously  opposes,"  and  that  he  is  to  be  hereafter  rC' 
vealed,  still  admits  that  Antichrist  is  to  be  "the  concluding  and 

1  Essays  Critical  and  Historical.     By  John  Henry  Newman,  fornierh''  Fellow  of  Orie 
College,  Oxford.    London,  1871.     The  Protestant  Idea  of  Antichrist,  vol.  ii.  pp.  173-175. 


820  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.  —  THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

most  appalling  phenomenon  "  of  the  great  apostasy.  But  if  so, 
he  must  be  an  ecclesiastical,  and  not  a  worldly  power. 

T.  Again  the  Apostle  says  that  "  the  mystery  of  iniquity  doth 
already  work."  That  is,  the  principles  and  spirit  had  already 
begun  to  manifest  themselves  in  the  Church,  which  were  to  culmi- 
nate in  the  revelation  of  the  Man  of  Sin.  How  could  this  be  said 
of  a  person  Avho  was  to  be  a  worldly  prince,  appearing  outside 
of  the  Church,  separated,  not  only  chronologically  by  ages  from 
the  apostolic  age,  but  also  logically,  from  all  the  causes  then  in 
operation.  If  Antichrist  is  to  be  a  single  person,  concentrating 
in  himself  all  worldly  power  as  a  universal  monarch,  to  appear 
shortly  before  the  end  of  the  world,  as  is  assumed  by  so  many 
expounders  of  prophecy,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  he  was  to  be  the 
product  of  the  leaven  already  working  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles. 

If  however,  as  Protestants  have  so  generally  believed,  the  pa- 
pacy is  the  Antichrist  which  the  Apostle  had  in  his  prophetic  eye, 
then  this  passage  is  perfectly  intelligible.  The  two  elements  of 
which  the  papacy  is  the  development  are  the  desire  of  preem- 
inence or  lust  of  power,  and  the  idea  of  a  priesthood,  that  is,  that 
Christian  ministers  are  mediators  whose  intervention  is  neces- 
sary to  secure  access  to  God,  and  that  they  are  authorized  to 
make  atonement  for  sin  ;  to  which  was  added  the  claim  to  grant 
absolution.  Both  these  elements  were  at  work  in  the  apostolic 
age.  The  papacy  is  the  product  of  the  transfer  of  Jewish  and 
Pagan  ideas  to  the  Christian  system.  The  Jews  had  a  high 
priest,  and  all  the  ministers  of  the  sanctuary  were  sacrificing 
priests.  The  Romans  had  a  "  Pontifex  Maximus "  and  the 
mmisters  of  religion  among  them  were  priests.  Nothing  was 
more  natural  and  nothing  is  plainer  as  a  historical  fact  than  that 
the  assumption  of  a  priestly  character  and  functions  by  the 
Christian  ministry,  was  one  of  the  earhest  corruptions  of  the 
Church.  And  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  to  this  assumption 
the  power  of  the  papacy  is  in  a  large  measure  to  be  attributed. 
And  as  to  the  desire  of  preeminence,  we  know  that  there  was, 
even  among  the  twelve,  a  contention  who  should  be  the  greatest. 
The  Apostle  John  (3  Epistle  9)  speaks  of  Diotrephes,  "  who 
loveth  to  have  the  preeminence  ;  "  and  in  all  the  Epistles  there  is 
evidence  of  the  struggle  for  ascendancy  on  the  part  of  unworthy 
ministers  and  teachers.  The  leaven  of  iniquity,  therefore,  was  at 
work  in  the  apostolic  age,  which  concentrated  by  degrees  into 
the  portentous  system  of  the  papacy. 

8.  According  to  this  view,  the  dilHcult  passage  in  verses  6  and 


§  6.J  ANTICHRIST.  821 

7  admits  of  an  easy  interpretation.  The  Apostle  there  says : 
"  Now  ye  know  what  withholdeth,  that  he  might  be  revealed  in 
his  time.  For  the  mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already  work  :  only 
he  who  now  letteth  will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  tlie  way." 
There  was,  therefore,  at  that  time  an  obstacle  which  prevented 
the  development  of  the  Man  of  Sin,  and  would  continue  to  pre- 
vent it,  as  long  as  it  remained  as  it  then  was.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  Paul  says,  "  Now  ye  know  what  withholdeth."  How  could 
the  Thessalonians  know  to  what  he  referred  ?  only  from  the 
Apostle's  instructions,  or  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  fact 
however  is  that  they  did  know,  and,  therefore,  it  is  probable 
that  knowledge  was  communicated  to  others,  and  was  not  likely 
to  be  soon  forgotten.  This  consideration  gives  the  more  weight 
to  the  almost  unanimous  judgment  of  the  early  fathers  that  the 
obstacle  to  the  development  of  Antichrist  was  the  Roman  empire. 
While  that  continued  in  its  vigour  it  was  impossible  that  an 
ecclesiastic  should  become  the  virtual  sovereign  of  the  world.  It 
is  a  historical  fact  that  the  conflict  between  the  Emperors  a;id 
the  Popes  for  the  ascendancy,  was  continued  for  ages,  and  that 
as  the  power  of  the  former  decreased  that  of  the  latter  increased. 

On  the  assumption  that  the  Antichrist  of  which  Paul  speaks 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  is  a  powerful  worldly  monarch 
hereafter  to  appear,  these  verses,  the  6th  and  7th,  present  the 
greatest  difficulty.  The  causes  which  are  to  bring  su.ch  a  mon- 
arch mto  the  possession  of  his  power  were  not  then  in  operation  ; 
there  was  then  no  obstacle  to  his  manifestation  so  obvious  as  to  be 
generally  known  to  Christians,  and  the  removal  of  which  was  to 
be  followed  at  once  by  his  revelation.  Even  on  the  assumption 
that  the  obstacle  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  was  not  the  Ro- 
man empire,  but  rather  the  regard  to  law  and  order  deeply  fixed  in 
the  public  mind,  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  revelation  of  the 
Man  of  Sin,  this  difficulty  is  scarcely  lessened.  How  could  the 
Thessalonians  have  known  that  ?  How  foreign  to  their  minds  must 
have  been  the  thought  that  a  regard  for  law  must  be  taken  out 
the  way  before  the  lawless  one  could  appear.  It  seems  plain  that 
the'  early  fathers  were  right  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Apostle's 
language  ;  and  that  he  meant  to  say  that  the  appearance  of  eccle 
siastical  claimants  to  universal  dominion,  was  not  possible  until 
the  Roman  empire  was  effectually  broken. 

According  to  Paul's  account.  Antichrist  was  to  arise  in  the 
Church.  He  was  to  put  forth  the  most  exorbitant  claims  ;  exalt 
himself  above  all  human  authority  ;  assume  to  himself  the  pre- 


822        PART  IV.    Ch.  ni  — the  second  advent. 

rogatives  of  God,  demanding  a  submission  due  only  to  God,  and 
virtually  setting  aside  the  authority  of  God,  and  substituting  his 
own  in  its  place.  These  assumptions  were  to  be  sustained  by  all 
manner  of  unrighteous  deceits,  by  signs,  and  by  lying  wonders. 
This  portrait  suits  the  papacy  so  exactly,  that  Protestants  at  least 
have  rarely  doubted  that  it  is  the  Antichrist  which  the  Apostle 
intended  to  describe. 

Dr.  John  Henry  Newman  says,  that  if  Protestants  insist  on 
making  the  Church  of  Rome  Antichrist,  they  thereby  make  over 
all  Roman  Catholics,  past  and  present,  "to  utter  and  hopeless 
perdition."  ^  This  does  not  follow.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  to 
be  viewed  under  different  aspects  ;  as  the  papacy,  an  external 
organized  hierarchy,  with  the  pope,  with  all  his  arrogant  claims, 
at  its  head  ;  and  also  as  a  body  of  men  professing  certain  re- 
ligious doctrines.  Much  may  be  said  of  it  in  the  one  aspect, 
which  is  not  true  of  it  in  the  other.  Much  may  be  said  of  Russia 
as  an  empire  that  cannot  be  said  of  all  Russians.  At  one  time 
the  first  Napoleon  was  regarded  by  many  as  Antichrist ;  that  did 
not  involve  the  belief  that  all  Frenchmen  who  acknowledged  him 
as  emperor,  or  all  soldiers  who  followed  him  as  their  leader,  were 
the  sons  of  perdition.  That  many  Roman  Catholics,  past  and 
present,  are  true  Christians,  is  a  palpable  fact.  It  is  a  fact  which 
no  man  can  deny  without  committing  a  great  sin.  It  is  a  sin 
against  Christ  not  to  acknowledge  as  true  Christians  those  who 
bear  his  image,  and  whom  He  recognizes  as  his  brethren.  It  is  a 
sin  also  against  ourselves.  We  are  not  born  of  God  unless  we 
love  the  children  of  God.  If  we  hate  and  denounce  those  whom 
Christ  loves  as  members  of  his  own  body,  what  are  we  ?  It  is 
best  to  be  found  on  the  side  of  Christ,  let  what  will  happen.  It 
is  perfectly  consistent,  then,  for  a  man  to  denounce  the  papacy 
as  the  man  of  sin,  and  yet  rejoice  in  believing,  and  in  openly 
acknowledging,  that  there  are,  and  ever  have  been,  many  Roman- 
ists who  are  the  true  children  of  God. 

Admitting  that  the  Apostle's  predictions  refer  to  the  Roman 
pontiffs,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  papacy  is  the  only  anti- 
christ. St.  John  says  there  are  many  antichrists.  Our  Lord 
says  many  shall  come  in  his  name,  claiming  in  one  form  or 
another  his  authority,  and  endeavouring  to  take  his  place  by  de- 
throning him.  The  Apostle  John  tells  us  this  "  is  the  last  time  " 
(1  John  ii.  18)  in  which  many  antichrists  are  to  appear.     This 

1  The  Protestant  Idea  of  Antichrist,  in  vol.  ii.  of  his  Essays  Critical  and  Historical 
p.  148. 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  823 

"  last  time "  extends  from  the  first  to  the  second  advent  of 
Christ.  This  long  period  lay  as  one  scene  before  the  minds  of 
the  prophets.  And  they  tell  what  was  given  them  to  see,  not  as 
though  they  were  writing  a  history,  and  unfolding  events  in  their 
historical  order,  but  as  describing  the  figures  which  they  saw,  as 
it  were,  represented  on  the  same  canvass.  As  Isaiah  describes 
the  redemption  from  Babylon  and  the  redemption  by  the  Mes- 
siah as  though  they  were  contemporary  events,  so  Joel,  in  almost 
the  same  sentence,  connects  the  effusion  of  the  spirit  which 
attended  the  first  advent  of  Christ  with  the  great  elemental 
changes  which  are  to  attend  his  second  coming.  How  long  the 
period  between  the  first  and  second  advents  of  the  Son  of  God  is 
to  be  protracted  is  unrevealed.  It  has  already  lasted  nearly  two 
thousand  years,  and,  for  what  we  know,  may  last  two  thousand 
more.  As  this  long  period,  crowded  with  great  events,  was  pre- 
sented as  a  whole  to  the  minds  of  the  prophets,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  should 
fix  on  one  prominent  feature  in  the  scene,  and  others  upon 
another.  Under  the  divine  guidance  granted  to  these  holy  seers, 
there  could  be  no  error  and  no  contradiction,  but  there  could 
hardly  fail  to  be  great  variety.  It  would  not,  therefore,  inval- 
idate the  account  given  of  Paul's  description  of  Antichrist,  if  it 
should  be  found  to  differ  in  some  respects  from  the  antichrists  of 
Daniel  and  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  Antichrist  of  Daniel. 

The  reader  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  has,  at  least  in  many 
cases,  the  advantage  of  a  divine  interpretation  of  his  predictions. 
The  prophet  himself  did  not  understand  the  import  of  his  visions, 
and  begged  to  have  them  explained  to  him ;  and  his  request  was, 
in  a  measure,  granted.  Thus  in  the  seventh  chapter  we  read : 
"  I  saw  in  my  vision  by  night,  and  behold,  ....  four  great 
beasts  came  up  from  the  sea,  diverse  one  from  another.  The 
first  was  like  a  lion  ;  ....  a  second  like  to  a  bear  ;  another 
like  a  leopard  ;  (and)  a  fourth  beast  dreadful  and  terrible,  and 
strong  exceedingly,  ....  and  it  had  ten  horns  ....  And 
behold  there  came  up  among  them  another  little  horn,  before 
.vliom  there  were  three  of  the  first  horns  plucked  up  by  the 
roots :  and,  behold,  in  this  horn  were  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  a  man, 
and  a  mouth  speaking  great  things." 

These  beasts  were,  as  the  expUmation  states,  the  symbols  of 
four  kingdoms,  the  Babylonish,  the  Medo-Persian,  the  Greek, 


824        PART  ly.   Ch.  III.  — the  second  advent. 

and  tlie  Roman.  This  last  was  to  be  divided  into  ten  kingdoms. 
That  kings  in  this  prophecy  mean  kingdoms,  not  individuals,  but 
an  organized  community  under  a  king,  is  plain  from  the  nature 
of  the  predictions  and  from  the  express  declaration  of  the  prophet ; 
for  he  says,  in  verse  17,  that  the  four  beasts  are  four  kings ;  and 
in  verse  23,  that  the  fourth  beast  is  the  fourth  kingdom.  King 
and  kingdom,  therefore,  are  interchanged  as  of  the  same  import, 
After,  or  in  the  midst  of  these  ten  kingdoms  signified  by  the  ten 
horns,  there  was  to  arise  another  kingdom  or  power  symbolized 
by  the  little  horn.  Of  this  power  it  is  said  :  (1.)  That  it  was  to 
be  of  a  different  kind  from  the  others.  Perhaps,  as  they  were 
civil  or  worldly  kingdoms,  this  was  to  be  ecclesiastical.  (2.)  He 
was  to  gain  the  ascendancy  over  the  other  powers  ;  at  least  three 
of  them  were  to  be  plucked  up  by  the  roots.  (3.)  He  was  to 
speak  great  things,  or  be  arrogant  in  his  assumptions.  (4.)  He 
was  to  set  himself  against  God;  speaking  "great  words  against 
the  Most  High."  (5.)  He  was  to  persecute  the  saints  ;  prevail 
against  them  and  wear  them  out;  and  they  shall  be  given  into 
his  hands.  (6.)  This  antichristian  power  was  to  continue  until  the 
judgment,  i.  e.,  "  until  the  Ancient  of  Days  came,  and  judgment 
was  given  to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High."  (Dan.  vii.  22.)  In 
all  these  particulars  the  Antichrist  of  Daniel  answers  to  the 
description  given  by  St.  Paul  in  2  Thessalonians.  In  one  point, 
however,  they  appear  to  differ.  According  to  Daniel,  the  power 
of  Antichrist  was  to  last,  or  at  least  his  persecution  of  the  saints, 
only  "a  time  and  times  and  the  dividing  of  a  time;"  that  is, 
three  years  and  a  half.  (Compare  Rev.  xiii.  5,  and  xi.  2,  3.) 
This  is  the  interpretation  generally  adopted.  Calvin  adopts  the 
principle  that  in  the  prophecies  definite  periods  of  time  are  used 
for  periods  of  indefinite  duration.  In  his  Commentary  on  Daniel 
he  makes  the  little  horn  spoken  of  in  the  seventh  chapter  to  be 
Julius  Caisar,  and  says  :  "  Qui  annum  putant  hie  notari  per  tem- 
pus,  falluntur  meo  judicio  ....  Annus  sumetur  figurate  pro 
tempore  aliquo  indeterminato."  ^  He  significantly  says  :  "  In 
numeris  non  sum  Pythagoricus." 

There  are  two  answers  to  this  difficulty.  The  word  antichrist 
may  be  a  generic  term,  as  it  seems  to  have  been  used  by  St. 
John,  not  referring  exclusively  to  any  one  individual  person,  or 
to  any  one  organization,  but  to  any  and  every  antichristian 
power,  having  certain  characteristics.     So  that  there  may  be,  as 

1  In  Danielem  vi\.  20,  25;   Worls,  Amsterdam,  1667,  vol  v.  pp.  109,  113. 

2  In  Danielem  xii.  12;  JbicL,  p.  205  b. 


§  6.J  ANTICHRIST.  825 

the  Apostle  says,  many  Antichrists.  Hence  Daniel  may  describe 
one,  and  Paul  another.  Secondly,  the  same  power,  retaining  all 
its  essential  characteristics,  may  change  its  form.  If  repubhcan 
France,  dming  the  first  revolution,  was  an  antichristian  nation, 
it  did  not  necessarily  change  its  character  when  it  became  an 
empire ;  and  what  was,  or  might  have  been,  said  of  it  in  prophecy 
under  the  one  form,  might  not  have  answered  to  what  it  was 
under  the  other  form.  During  the  Middle  Ages,  bishops  were 
sometimes  princes  and  warriors.  A  prophetic  description  of 
them,  while  giving  their  general  characteristics  suited  to  both 
their  ecclesiastical  and  worldly  functions,  might  say  some  things 
of  them  as  warlike  princes  which  did  not  belong  to  them  as 
bishops.  However,  we  do  not  pretend  to  be  experts  in  matters 
of  prophecy  ;  our  object  is  simply  to  state  what  Paul  said  of  the 
Antichrist  which  he  had  in  view,  and  what  Daniel  said  of  the 
Antichrist  which  he  was  inspired  to  describe. 

In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Daniel,  from  the  36th  verse  to  the 
end,  there  is  a  passage  which  is  commonly  understood  of  Anti- 
christ, because  what  is  there  said  is  not  true  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  to  whom  the  former  part  of  the  chapter  is  referred, 
and  is  true  of  Antichrist  as  described  in  other  places  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  not  true  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  that  he  abandoned 
the  gods  of  his  fathers.  On  the  contrary,  his  purpose  was  to 
force  all  under  his  control,  the  Jews  included,  to  worship  those 
gods.  What  is  said  in  verse  36  is  in  substance  what  Paul  says,  in 
2  Thessalonians  ii.  4,  of  the  Man  of  Sin.  Daniel  says  that  "  the 
king,"  whom  he  describes,  "  shall  do  according  to  his  will ;  and 
he  shall  exalt  himself,  and  magnify  himself  above  every  god,  and 
shall  speak  marvellous  things  against  the  God  of  gods,  and  shall 
prosper  till  the  indignation  be  accomplished  :  for  that  that  is 
determined  shall  be  done."  This  exalting  himself  "  above  all 
that  is  called  god  "  is  the  prominent  characteristic  of  Antichrist 
as  he  is  elsewhere  presented  in  Scripture. 

The  Antichrist  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  Apocalypse  seems  to  be  a  summing  up  and  expansion  of 
all  the  eschatological  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
of  those  of  Ezekiel,  Zechariah  and  Daniel.  The  same  symbols, 
the  same  forms  of  expression,  the  same  numbers,  the  same  cycle  of 
events,  occur  in  the  New  Testament  predictions,  that  are  found 
in  those  of  the  Old.  Every  one  knows  that  commentators  differ 
not  only  in  their  interpretation  of  the  details,  but  even  as  to  the 


826         PART  IV.    Ch.  III.  — the  second  advent. 

whole  structure  and  design  of  the  book  of  Revelation.  Some 
regard  it  as  a  description  in  oriental  imagery  of  contemporaneous 
events  ;  others  as  intended  to  set  forth  the  different  phases  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  Church ;  others  as  designed  to  unfold  the 
leading  events  in  the  history  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world  in 
their  chronological  order  ;  others  again  assume  that  it  is  a  series, 
figuratively  speaking,  of  circles  ;  each  vision  or  series  of  visions 
relating  to  the  same  events  under  different  aspects  ;  the  end,  and 
the  preparation  for  the  end,  being  presented  over  and  over  again  ; 
the  great  theme  being  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  the  triumph 
of  his  Church.^ 

The  most  commonly  accepted  view  of  the  general  contents  of 
the  book  by  those  Avho  adopt  the  chronological  method  is  that  so 
clearly  presented  in  the  admirable  little  work  of  Dr.  James  M, 
Macdonald  (now  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey ).2  x\ccording  to  this 
view,  the  introduction  is  contained  in  chapters  i.-iii. ;  part  second 
relates  the  Jewish  persecutions,  and  the  destruction  of  that 
power,  in  chapters  iv.-xi.  14 ;  part  third  relates  the  Pagan 
persecutions,  and  the  end  of  the  Pagan  persecuting  power,  in 
chapters  xi.  15-xiii.  10  ;  part  fourth  relates  the  Papal  persecu- 
tions and  errors,  and  their  end,  m  chapters  xiii.  11-xix.  ;  and 
part  fifth  relates  the  latter  day  of  glory,  the  battle  of  Gog  and 
Magog,  the  final  judgment,  and  the  heavenly  state,  in  chapters 
XX.— xxii. 

Luthardt  may  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the  advocates  of 
the  theory  that  the  historical  sequence  of  events  is  not  designed  to 
be  set  forth  in  the  Apocalypse.     The  three  works  of  the  Apostle 

1  The  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelations  of  St.  John,  viewed  in  their  Mutual 
Rtlation,  icith  an  Exposition  of  the  Principal  Passages.  By  Carl  August  Auberlen,  Dr. 
Phil.,  Liceutiate  and  Professor  Extraordinarius  of  Theology  in  Basil.  Edinburgh,  1856. 
Auberlen  says,  on  page  359:  "The  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse  may  be  reduced  to 
three  grand  groups.  First,  the  church-historical  view  regards  the  Revelations  as  a  pro- 
phetic compendium  of  Church  history."  This  was  the  early  Church  view.  Its  principal 
representative  in  Germany  is  Bengel.  It  is  generally  adopted  by  the  British  and  French 
interpreters.  To  this  class  belong  Elliot's  Hoj-cs  Apocalypticce,  or  a  Commentary  on  the 
Apocalypse,  Critical  and  Historical,  second  edition,  London;  1846;  four  volumes;  and  the 
work  of  Gaussen  of  Geneva,  entitled  Daniel  le  Prophete.  The  second  class  includes  the 
modern  German  interpreters,  who,  denying  any  real  prediction  of  the  future,  confine 
the  views  of  Daniel  and  John  to  their  contemporary  history.  To  this  class  belong  Ewald, 
De  Wettp,  Liicke,  and  others.  The  third  group  includes  those  who  admit  the  divine  inspi- 
ration of  the  prophecies  and  acknowledge  the  prediction  of  even  minute  events,  but  deny 
tnat  the  Apocalypse  was  designed  to  be  a  detailed  history  of  the  future.  "  Its  object  is  to 
represent  the  great  epochs  and  loading  principal  powers  in  the  development  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  viewed  in  its  relation  to  the  world-kingdoms."  (p.  301.)  To  this  class 
Auberlen  himself  belongs,  and  he  has  carried  out  the  theory  with  singular  clearness  and 
ability.     His  work  is  excellently  translated  by  the  Itev.  Adoljih  Saphir. 

'•i  A  Key  to  the  Book  of  Revelation  ;  with  an  Appendix.  By  James  M.  Macdonald, 
Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Jamaica,  L.  I.     Second  edition.    New  London,  1848 


g  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  827 

John  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles^ 
and  the  Apocalypse,  according  to  Luthardt,  form  a  beautiful,  har- 
monious whole ;  as  faith,  love,  and  hope  mingle  into  one,  so  do 
these  writings  of  St.  John,  though  each  has  its  characteristic ; 
faith  is  prominent  in  the  Gospel,  love  in  the  Epistles,  and  hope 
in  the  Apocalypse.  The  theme  of  the  Book  of  Revelation  is,  — 
"  Behold,  He  comes."  Luthardt  admits  that  commentators  differ 
greatly  as  to  their  views  of  its  meaning,  and  that,  at  first,  it 
appears  very  full  of  enigmas  ;  but  he  adds,  ^  "  Whoever  is  familiar 
with  the  ancient  prophecies,  and  gives  himself  with  loving  confi- 
dence to  this  book,  will  soon  find  the  right  way,  which  will  lead 
him  safely  through  all  its  labyrinths."  This  is  the  experience  of 
every  commentator  so  far  as  he  himself  is  concerned,  however  he 
may  fail  to  satisfy  his  readers  that  his  way  is  the  right  one.  The 
main  principle  of  Luthardt's  exposition  is,  "  That  the  Revelation 
of  John  does  not  contemplate  the  events  of  history,  whether  of 
the  Church  or  of  the  world.  It  contemplates  the  end.  We  find 
that  the  antagonism  of  the  Church  and  the  world,  and  the  issue 
of  the  conflict  are  its  contents  ;  the  coming  of  Christ  is  its  theme. 
The  events  of  history  preceding  the  consummation  are  taken  up 
only  so  far  as  they  are  connected  with  the  final  issue.  This  con- 
summation is  not  chronologically  unfolded,- but  is  ever  taken  up 
anew,  in  order  to  lead  us  by  a  new  way  to  the  end."  ^  One  thing  is 
certain,  namely,  that  the  Apocalypse  contains  the  series  of  pre- 
dictions common  to  all  the  prophets  ;  the  defections  of  the  people 
of  God  ;  persecutions  of  their  enemies  ;  direful  judgments  on  the 
persecutors  ;  and  the  final  triumph  and  blessedness  of  the  elect. 
Under  different  forms,  this  is  the  burden  of  all  the  disclosures 
God  has  seen  fit  to  make  of  the  fate  of  his  Church  here  on  earth  ; 
and  this  is  the  burden  of  the  Apocalypse.  According  to  Luthardt, 
the  first  vision  i.  9-iii.  22,  concerns  the  present  state  of  the 
Church ;  the  second  vision,  iv.  1— viii.  1,  concerns  God  and  the 
world ;  the  third  vision,  viii.  2-xi.  19,  concerns  the  judgment 
of  the  world  and  the  consummation  of  covenant  fellowship  with 
God ;  the  fourth  vision,  xii.-xiv.  concerns  the  Church  and  the 
antichristian  world  power ;  this  contains  the  vision  of  the  woman, 
which  brought  forth  the  man  child ;  and  in  xii.  18-xiii.  18, 
Antichrist  and  the  false  prophet ;  and  in  xiv.  the  Church  of  the 
end,  and  the  judgment  of  the  antichristian  world ;  and  the  fifth 
vision,  xv.-xxii.  concerns  the  outpouring  of  'svrath  upon  the 
world  and  the  redemption  of  the  Church. 

1  Die  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  pp.  165-173;  see  page  173. 

2  Ihid..  p.  171. 


828  PART  IV.     Ch.   IIL— the    second  ADVENT. 

It  is  cliaracteristic  of  the  Apocalypse  that  it  takes  up  and 
expands  the  eschatological  predictions  of  the  earher  portions  of 
Scriptvn-e.  What  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the  Epistles  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  set  forth  under  one  symbol  and  in  the  con- 
crete, is  in  the  Apocalypse  presented  under  two  or  more  symbols 
representing  the  constituent  elements  of  the  whole.  Thus  the 
Antichrist  is  predicted  in  Daniel  imder  the  symbol  of  "  the  little 
horn,"  and  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  under  the  title 
of  the  Man  of  Sin.  Antichrist,  as  thus  portrayed,  includes  an 
ecclesiastical  and  a  worldly  element ;  an  apostate  Church  invested 
with  imperial,  worldly  power.  In  the  Apocalypse  these  two  ele- 
ments are  represented  as  separate  and  united ;  a  woman  sitting 
on  a  beast  -with  ten  horns.  The  woman  is  the  apostate  Church  ; 
the  beast  is  the  symbol  of  the  world-power  by  which  it  is  sup- 
ported. The  destruction  of  the  one,  therefore,  does  not  involve 
the  destruction  of  the  other.  According  to  the  prediction  in  the 
eighteenth  chapter,  the  kings  of  the  earth,  wearied  with  the  arro- 
gance and  assumption  of  the  apostate  Church,  shall  turn  against 
it,  waste,  and  consume  it ;  that  is,  despoil  it  of  its  external  power 
and  glory.  The  destruction  of  Babylon,  therefore,  here  predicted, 
is  understood  by  that  diligent  student  of  prophecy,  Mr.  D.  N. 
Lord,  not  as  implying  the  overthrow  of  the  Papacy,  but  its 
"  denationalization"  and  spoliation.^ 

Throughout  the  Scriptures  the  relation  between  God  and  his 
people  is  illustrated  by  that  of  a  husband  to  his  wife  ;  apostasy 
from  God,  therefore,  is  in  the  ancient  prophets  called  adultery. 
In  the  Revelation,  the  Church,  considered  as  faithful,  is  called  the 
woman  ;  as  apostate,  the  adulteress  or  harlot ;  and  as  glorified, 
the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife.  It  is  in  accordance  with  the  analogy 
of  Scripture  that  the  harlot  spoken  of  in  chapters  xvii.  and  xviii.  is 
understood  to  be  the  apostate  Church.  Of  this  woman  it  is  said : 
(1.)  That  she  sits  on  many  waters.  This  is  explained  in  xvii.  15, 
of  her  wide  spread  dominion  :  "  The  waters  which  thou  sawest, 
where  the  whore  sitteth,  are  peoples,  and  multitudes,  and  nations, 
and  tongues."  (2.)  That  she  seduced  the  nations  into  idolatry  ; 
making  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  drunk  with  the  wine  of  her 
fornication.  (3.)  That  she  is  sustained  in  her  blasphemous  assump- 
tion of  divine  prerogatives  and  powers  by  the  kings  and  princes  of 
the  earth.  She  is  seen  sitting  on  a  scarlet-coloured  beast,  full  of 
the  names  of  blasphemy,  having  seven  heads  and  ten  horns.  In 
verse  12,  these  ten  horns  are  said  to  be  ten  kings,  i.  e.,  in  the  lan- 

1  An  Exposition  of  the  Apocalyitse.     By  David  N.  Lord.     New  York,  1859,  p.  502. 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  829 

guage  of  prophecy,  ten  kingdoms.  (4.)  That  she  takes  rank  among 
and  above  the  kmgs  and  princes  of  the  earth.  She  is  "  arrayed  in 
purple  and  scarlet  colour,  and  decked  with  gold  and  precious 
stones  and  pearls."  (5.)  That  her  riches  are  above  estimate.  This 
is  dwelt  upon  at  length  in  the  eighteenth  chapter.  (6.)  That  she 
is  a  persecuting  power,  "  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saint-s, 
and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus."  (7.)  That  the 
claims  of  this  persecuting  power,  as  appears  from  Revelation 
xiii.  13, 14,  are  to  be  sustained  by  lying  wonders.  "  He  doetb 
great  wonders,  so  that  he  maketh  fire  come  down  from  heaven  on 
the  earth  in  the  sight  of  men,  and  deceiveth  them  that  dwell  on 
the  earth  by  those  miracles  which  he  hath  power  to  do  in  the 
sight  of  the  beast."  We  find,  therefore,  in  this  description  all 
the  traits  which  in  Daniel  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 
are  ascribed  to  the  Man  of  Sin,  or,  6  di/Tt/cet/xei'os,  the  Antichrist.  It 
matters  not  what  this  power  may  be  called.  "  Wheresoever  the 
carcass  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together."  Any 
man ;  any  institution ;  any  organized  power  which  answers  to 
this  prophetic  description,  comes  within  the  prophetic  denun- 
ciations here  recorded.^  Neither  does  it  matter  v/hat  is  to  happen 
after  this  judgment  on  the  mystical  Babylon.  Should  another 
Antichrist  arise,  essentially  worldly  in  his  character,  as  so  many 
anticipate,  who  shall  attain  universal  dominion,  and  set  himself 
against  God  and  his  Christ  with  more  blasphemous  assumptions, 
with  a  more  malignant  hatred  of  the  Church,  and  a  more  de- 
moniacal spirit  than  any  of  his  predecessors,  this  would  not  at 
all  disprove  the  correctness  of  the  interpretation  given  above 
of  St.  John's  predictions  concerning  Babylon.  On  this  point, 
Maitland  says  :  "  The  two  great  powers  whose  names  stand  fore- 
most in  prophecy  come  into  historical  contact  at  a  single  point. 
Where  Babylon  ends.  Antichrist  begins :  the  same  ten  kings 
that  destroy  the  first,   give  their  power  to  the  second.     When 

1  Aubcrlen,  p.  203,  quotes  with  approbation  the  following  passat^e  from  John  Michael 
Hahn  {Briefc  und  Lieder  iiber  die  Offenbu-uiiff.  Works,  vol.  v.  §  G,  Tiibingen,  1820) :  "  The 
harlot  is  not  the  city  of  liomc  alone,  neither  is  it  only  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  to  the 
exclusion  of  another,  but  all  churches  and  every  church,  ours  included,  namely,  all  Chris- 
tendom that  is  without  the  Spirit  and  life  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  which  calls  itself  Christian, 
and  has  neither  Christ's  mind  nor  Spirit."  While  giving-  the  prophecy  this  wide  scope, 
Aubcrlen,  nevertheless,  adds,  "The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  not  only  accidentally  and 
'  de  facto,' but  in  virtue  of  its  very  principle  a  harlot;  she  has  the  lamentable  distinction 
of  being  the  harlot  /car*  t^oxvv,  the  metropolis  of  whoredom,  the  mother  of  harlots  (Rev. 
xvii.  5);  it  is  she,  who,  more  than  others,  boasts  of  herself;  I  sit  a  queen,  and  am  no 
widow,  and  shall  see  no  sorrow  (xviii.  7),  whereas  the  evangelical  (Protestant)  Church  is, 
according  to  her  principle  and  fundamental  creed,  a  chaste  woman;  the  Reformation  was 
a  protest  of  the  woman  against  the  harlot." 


830  PART   IV.     Ch.   Ill  — the   second  ADVENT. 

the  ten  kings  shall  have  burnt  Rome,  so  complete  will  be  the 
ruin,  that  no  sign  of  life  or  habitation  will  again  be  found  in  her. 
Here,  then,  is  a  decisive  landmark ;  Rome  is  still  standing,  there- 
fore, Antichrist  has  not  yet  come :  we  are  still  in  the  times  of 
Babylon,  whether  tasting  or  refusing  her  golden  cup."  In  this 
view,  that  is,  in  assuming  that  the  Scriptural  prophecies  respect- 
ing Antichrist,  have  not  their  full  accomplishment  in  any  one  anti- 
christian  power  or  personage  exclusively,  many  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished eschatologists,  as  Auberlen  and  Luthardt,  substantially 
agree.  The  ancient  prediction  that  Japliet  should  dwell  in  the 
tents  of  Sliem,  had  its  fulfihnent  every  time  the  descendants  of 
the  latter  participated  in  the  temporal  or  spiritual  heritage  of  the 
children  of  the  former ;  and  had  its  final  and  great  accomplish- 
ment in  the  sons  of  Japhet  sharing  the  blessings  of  redemption, 
which  were  to  be  realized  in  the  line  of  Shem.  In  like  manner 
the  predictions  concerning  Antichrist  may  have  had  a  partial  ful- 
filment in  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  in  Nero  and  Pagan  Rome,  and  in 
the  papacy,  and,  it  may  still  have  a  fulfilment  in  some  great  anti- 
christian  power  which  is  yet  to  appear.  So  much,  at  least,  is 
clear,  in  the  time  of  Paul  there  was  in  the  future  a  great  apos- 
tasy and  an  antichristian,  arrogant  persecuting  power,  which  has 
been  realized,  in  all  its  essential  characteristics,  in  the  papacy, 
whatever  may  happen  after  Antichrist,  in  that  form,  is  utterly  de- 
spoiled and  trodden  under  foot.^ 

1  The  Apostles'  School  of  Prophetic  Interpretation :  with  its  History  down  to  the 
Present  Time.  London,  1849,  p.  41.  Mr.  Maitland,  on  p.  42,  presents  the  difference  be- 
tween Babylon  and  Antichrist  in  the  following  manner:  — 

"  Babylon  is  Described.  Antichrist  is  Described. 

As  a  feminine  power.  As  a  masculine  power. 

Seductive     and     abandoned,     prevailing  Ferocious    and    warlilce,    enforcing    his 

through  her  golden  cup.  claims  by  the  sword. 

Is  succeeded  by  ten  antichristian  kings.  A  final  apostasy  provoking  Christ's  second 

coming  in  vengeance. 

Is  burnt  by  the  ten  kings,  who  afterwards  Destroyed,  together  with  the  kings,  in  the 

fight  against  the  Lamb.  great  battle  with  the  Lamb. 

Is  bewailed  by  her  accomplices  in  crime.  Leaves  none  to  lament  his  fall. 

Contains  some  of   God's  people  even   to  Fatal  to  salvation  of  all  his  followers, 

the  end. 

Established  on  the  seven  hills.  Reigns  in  Jerusalem." 

The  undue  size  which  this  volume  has  alrcad}'  reached  forbids  a  fuller  discussion  of  this 
subject.  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  American  edition  of  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  under  the  word  "Antichrist,"  for  an  elaborate  exhibition  of  the  different  views 
v/hich  have  prevailed  in  the  Church,  and  for  an  exhaustive  statement  of  the  literature  ol 
the  subject.  Doctor  William  Smitlt's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  Revised  and  edited  bj 
Professor  H.  B.  Hackett,  D.D.,  with  the  cooperation  of  Ezra  Abbotj  LL.  D.,  Assictani  Li 
brarian  of  Harvard  College.     New  York.  1870. 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  881 

Roman  Catliolio  Doctrine  of  Antichrist. 

The  general  opinion  in  the  early  Church  was  that  Antichrist 
was  a  man  of  Satanic  spirit  endowed  with  Satanic  power  who 
should  appear  before  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  Jerome  says, 
in  his  Commentary  on  Daniel :  "  Let  us  say  what  all  ecclesiastical 
writers  have  handed  down,  namely,  that  at  the  end  of  the  world, 
when  the  Roman  empire  is  destroyed,  there  will  be  ten  kmga 
who  will  divide  the  Roman  world  amongst  them  ;  and  there  will 
arise  an  eleventh  little  king,  who  will  subdue  three  of  the  ten 
kings,  that  is,  the  king  of  Egypt,  of  Africa,  and  of  Ethiopia,  as  we 
shall  hereafter  show.  And  on  these  being  slain  the  seven  others 
will  also  submit.  'And  behold,'  he  says,  '  in  the  ram  were  the 
eyes  of  a  man.'  This  is  said  that  we  may  not  suppose  him  to  be 
a  devil  or  demon,  as  some  have  thought,  but  a  man  in  whom 
Satan  will  dwell  utterly  and  bodily.  '  And  a  mouth  speaking 
great  things,'  for  he  is  '  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  who 
sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  making  himself  as  God.' "  ^ 

Substantially  the  same  view  prevailed  during  the  Middle  Ages. 
Some  however  of  the  theologians  of  the  Latin  Church  saw  that 
the  development  of  the  Man  of  Sin  was  to  take  place  in  the 
Church  itself  and  be  connected  with  a  general  apostasy  from  the 
faith.  They  were  therefore  sufficiently  bold  to  teach  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  to  fall  away,  and  that  the  Papacy  or  some  in- 
dividual pontiff  was  to  become  the  Antichrist  spoken  of  in  Scrip- 
ture. The  abbot  Joachim  of  Floris  (died  1202),  a  Franciscan, 
put  himself  in  opposition  to  the  worldly  spirit  of  the  Church  of 
his  time,  and  his  followers,  called  "  Spirituales,"  came  to  de- 
nounce the  Church  of  Rome  as  the  mystical  Babylon  of  the 
Apocalypse.  This  was  done  with  great  boldness  by  John  Peter 
of  Oliva  (died  1297),  whose  works  were  formally  condemned  as 
■•'  blasphemous  and  heretical."  Among  the  passages  thus  con- 
demned are  the  following :  "  The  woman  here  stands  for  the 
people  and  empire  of  Rome,  both  as  she  existed  formerly  in  a 

1  "Dicamus  quod  omnes  scriptores  ecclesiastici  tradiderunt:  in  coiisummatione  mundi, 
•]uandD  regniim  destruendum  est  Romanorum,  decern  futuros  reges,  qui  orbem  Romanum 
intei  s°  dividant,  et  undecimum  surrecturum  esse  regem  parvulum,  qui  tres  reges  de  decern 
regibus  superaturus  sit,  id  est,  /Egyptiorum  regem,  et  Africa;  et  /Etliiopia;,  sicut  in  con- 
sequentibus  manifestii's  dicemus.  Quibus  interfectus,  etiam  septem  alii  reges  victori  colla 
submitteut.  '  Et  ecce,'  ait,  'oculi  quasi  oculi  hominis  erant  in  cornu  isto.'  Ne  eum  pute- 
musjuxta  quorumdam  opinionem,  vel  diabokim  esse,  vel  diemonem:  sed  unum  de  homini- 
bus,  in  quo  totus  satanas  habitaturus  sit  corporaliter.  '  Et  os  loquens  ingentia  (2  Tliess. 
i'. ).'  Est  enim  homo  peccati.  Alias  perditionis,  ita  ut  in  templo  Dei  sedere  audeat,  faci- 
ens  se  quasi  Deum."  In  Danielem,  vii.  8;  Works,  edit.  Migne,  vol.  v.  p.  531,  a,  b  [667, 
668]. 


832  PART  IV.     Cii.   III.  — THE   SECOND  ADVENT. 

state  of  Paganism,  and  as  she  has  smce  existed,  holding  the  faith 
of  Christ,  though  by  many  crimes  committing  harlotry  with  this 
world.  And,  therefore,  she  is  called  a  great  harlot ;  for,  depart- 
ing from  the  faithful  worship,  the  true  love  and  delights  of  her 
Bridegroom,  even  Christ  her  God,  she  cleaves  to  this  world,  itis 
riches  and  delights  ;  yea,  for  their  sake  she  cleaves  to  the  devil, 
also  to  kings,  nobles,  and  prelates,  and  to  all  other  lovers  of  this 
world."  ''  She  saitli  in  her  heart,  that  is,  in  her  pride,  I  sit  a 
queen  :  —  I  am  at  rest ;  I  rule  over  my  kingdom  with  great 
dominion  and  glory.  And  I  am  no  widow :  —  I  am  not  destitute 
of  glorious  bishops  and  kings."  ^ 

Not  only  the  poets  Dante  and  Petrarch  denounced  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Reformation  that  Church  was  held  up  by  a  succession  of  theo- 
logians or  ecclesiastics,  as  the  Babylon  of  the  Apocalypse  wliich 
was  to  be  overthrown  and  rendered  desolate. 

When  the  Reformers  with  one  voice  pronounced  the  same 
judgment,  and,  making  little  distinction  between  Babylon  and 
Antichrist,  held  up  the  Papacy  as  the  antichristian  power  pre- 
dicted by  Daniel,  by  St.  Paul,  and  by  St.  John,  the  Romanists  laid 
out  their  strength  in  defending  their  Church  from  this  denunci- 
ation. Bellarmin,  the  great  advocate  of  the  cause  of  Romanism, 
devotes  an  extended  dissertation  to  the  discussion  of  this  subject, 
which  constitutes  the  third  book  of  his  work,  "  De  Romano  Pon- 
tifice."  The  points  that  he  assumes  are  :  First,  that  the  word 
"Antichrist  "  cannot  mean,  as  some  Protestants  thought,  "  sub- 
stitute or  vicar  "  of  Christ,  but  an  opponent  of  Christ.  In  this 
all  parties  are  now  agreed.  Second,  that  Antichrist  is  "  unus 
homo,"  and  not  "  genus  hominum."  The  Magdeburg  Centuri- 
ators^  said:  "  Docent  [Apostoli]  Antichristum  non  fore  unan\ 
aliquam  tan  turn  personam,  sed  integrum  regnum,  per  falsos  doc- 
tores  in  templo  Dei,  hoc  est  in  Ecclesia  Dei  prsesidentes,  in  urba 
magna,  quas  liabet  regnum  super  reges  terra  id  est,  in  Romana 
civitate,  et  impcrio  Romano,  opera  diaboli,  et  fraudo,  et  decep- 
tione  comparatum."  This  view  Bellarmin  undertakes  to  refute, 
controverting  the  arguments  of  Calvin  and  Beza  in  its  support. 
In  this  opinion  also  the  leading  Protestant  interpreters  of  the 
present  da}',  as  above  stated,  agree.  According  to  the  views 
already  advanced,  there  may  be  hereafter  a  great  antichristiar. 

1  Maitland,  The  Apnsllcs'  School  of  Prophetic  Tntcrpretntion,  p.  340;  sec  also  Guericke, 
Kirchengexchichtc,  Gth  edit.,  Leipzig,  184G,  vol.  ii.  pp.  223-226. 

2  De  Antichvlsto,  cent.  i.  lib.  ii.  cap.  iv. ;  Basle,  15G2,  vol.  i.  pp.  43-4,  435,  of  second  set 


§  6.]  ANTICHRIST.  833 

power,  concentrated  in  an  individual  ruler,  wlio  will  be  utterly 
destroyed  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
belief  may  be  maintained  that  the  Antichrist  described  by  Daniel 
and  St.  Paul  is  not  a  man,  but  an  institution  or  organized  power 
such  as  a  kingdom  or  the  papacy. 

The  third  position  assumed  by  Bellarmin  is  that  the  Anti- 
christ is  still  future.  In  this  way  he  endeavours  to  make  it  plain 
that  the  papacy  is  not  Antichrist.  But,  as  just  said,  even  if  an 
Antichrist,  and  even  the  Antichrist  Kar  f-'coxw,  is  yet  to  come,  that 
would  not  prove  that  the  papacy  is  not  the  power  predicted  by 
the  Apostle  as  the  Man  of  Sin,  and  the  mystical  Babylon  as  pre- 
dicted in  the  Apocalypse. 

Bellarmin  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  us  six  signs  of  Anti- 
christ, from  which  it  is  plain  that  he  has  not  yet  appeared.  Two 
of  these  signs  precede  his  coming,  the  universal  proclamation  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  utter  destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire  ;  two 
are  to  attend  it,  namely,  the  preaching  of  Enoch  and  Elias,  and 
persecutions  so  severe  as  to  cause  the  cessation  of  all  public  wor- 
ship of  God  ;  and  two  are  to  follow  his  appearance  ;  his  utter 
destruction  after  three  years  and  a  half ;  and  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  passages  on  which  he  relies  to  prove  that  Enoch  and  Elias 
are  to  come  and  oppose  themselves  to  Antichrist,  and  to  preserve 
the  elect,  are  Malachi  iv.,  Ecclesiasticus  xliv.  and  xlviii.,  Matthew 
xvii.  11  (Jesus  said,  "  Elias  truly  shall  first  come  and  restore  all 
things  "),  and  Revelation  xi.  3,  where  the  appearance  of  the  two 
witnesses,  who  were  to  prophesy  two  thousand  two  hundred  and 
sixty  days,  is  foretold.  As  modern  evangelical  interpreters  agree 
with  Bellarmin  in  so  many  other  points,  so  they  agree  with  him 
in  teaching  that  there  is  to  be  a  second  appearance  of  Elias,  before 
the  second  advent  of  Christ.  Luthardt  understands  Matthew 
xvii.  11  as  predicting  such  reappearance  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophet.  He  was  to  be  one,  and  Moses  the  other  of  the  two  wit- 
nesses spoken  of  in  Revelation  xi.  3.  Of  course,  says  Luthardt, 
Elias  and  Moses  are  to  reappear  in  the  sense  in  which  Elias 
appeared  in  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist.^ 

Fourthly,  according  to  Bellarmin,  Antichrist  is  to  be  a  Jew, 
and  probably  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  He  is  to  claim  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah, and  this  claim  is  to  be  recognized  by  the  Jews.  In  virtue 
of  his  Messiahship  he  sets  himself  against  Christ,  and  puts  him- 
self in  his  place,  and  arrogates  the  reverence,  the  obedience,  the 
universal  dominion  and  the  absolute  authority,  which  rightfully 

1  Luthardt,  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  p.  46. 
VOL.  III.  53 


834        PART  IV.   ch.  m.  —  the  second  advent. 

belong  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Cln-ist.  The  seat  of  his  dominion  is  to 
be  Jerusalem.  In  the  Temple  restored  in  that  city,  he  is  to  take 
his  seat  as  God,  and  exalt  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God. 
He  is  called  "  the  little  horn,"  because  the  Jews  are  comj^ara- 
tively  a  small  nation.  But  he  is  to  subdue  one  kingdom  after 
another  until  his  dominion  as  a  worldly  sovereign  becomes  abso- 
lutely universal.  The  authority  urged  for  this  view  is  princi- 
pally that  of  the  fathers,  many  of  whom  taught  that  Antichrist 
was  to  be  a  Jew  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  Appeal  was  made  by  those 
fathers  as  by  their  followers  to  Genesis  xlix.  17,  where  it  is  said, 
"  Dan  shall  be  a  serpent  by  the  way,  an  adder  in  the  path,  that 
biteth  the  horse-heels,  so  that  his  rider  shall  fall  backward." 
And  also  to  Revelation  vii.,  because  in  the  enumeration  of  the 
tribes  from  which  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand  were 
sealed,  the  name  of  Dan  is  omitted.  Bellarmm  argues  that  Anti- 
christ is  to  be  a  Jew  from  John  v.  43  :  "  I  am  come  in  my 
Father's  name  and  ye  (Jews)  receive  me  not :  if  another  shall 
come  in  his  own  name,  him  ye  (Jews)  will  receive."  That  is, 
will  receive  as  the  Messiah  ;  but  the  Jews,  as  Bellarmin  argues, 
would  never  receive  as  the  Messiah  any  one  who  was  not  himself 
a  Jew.  The  principal  Scriptural  ground  of  the  opinion  that 
Antichrist  is  to  be  a  Jew  is  founded  on  Revelation  xi.  8,  where 
the  seat  of  his  dominion  is  said  to  be  the  great  city  "  where  also 
our  Lord  was  crucified."  In  answer  to  this  argument  it  may  be 
said,  first,  that  admitting  that  the  literal  Jerusalem  is  to  be  the 
seat  of  the  kingdom  of  Antichrist,  it  does  not  follow  that  either 
he  or  his  kingdom  is  to  be  Jewish.  Many  interpreters  hold  that 
the  Jews,  instead  of  being  the  supporters  of  Antichrist,  are  to  be 
the  principal  objects  of  his  malice,  and  that  it  is  by  persecuting 
and  oppressing .  them  that  he  is  to  get  possession  of  their  holy 
city  and  profane  their  temple  far  more  atrociously  than  it  was 
profaned  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  And  secondly,  interpreters 
so  different  as  Hengstenberg  and  Mr.  David  N.  Lord,  agree  in 
understanding  the  predictions  in  Revelation  xi.  to  refer  not  to 
the  literal  Jerusalem  and  its  Temple,  but  to  that  of  which  they 
were  the  symbols.  The  New  Jerusalem  is  the  symbol  of  the 
purified  and  glorified  Church  ;  the  city  where  our  Lord  was 
crucified,  the  symbol  of  the  worldly  and  nat'onalized  Church.^ 

1  IMr.  Lord  says:  "The  place  where  Christ  was  crucified,  was  an  open  elevated  space 
without  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  on  one  of  the  principal  entrances  to  the  city.  The 
street  where  the  dead  body  of  the  witnesses  is  to  be  placed,  represents  parts  therefore  of 
the  ten  kingdoms,  bearing  a  relation  of  conspicuity  and  importance  to  the  apostate 
hierarchies,  like  that  which  the  great  entrance  to  Jerusalem  that  passed  along  by  the  foot 
of  Calvary  bore  to  that  city ;  —  parts  of  those  kingdoms  from  which  those  hierarchies  largel.v 


§6.]  ANTICHEIST.  835 

Fifthly,  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Antichrist,  everything  follows, 
from  the  assumption  that  he  claims  to  be  Christ.  In  claiming  to 
be  the  Messiah  predicted  by  the  prophets,  he  is  to  claim  to  be 
the  only  object  of  worsliip.  That  he  is  to  admit  of  no  other  God, 
whether  true  or  false,  nor  of  any  idols,  Bellarmin  infers  from  2 
Tb  jssalonians  ii.  2,  "  He  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all 
that  is  called  God  or  is  worsliipped."  "  Certum  est,"  says  Bellar- 
min, "  Antichristi  persecutionem  fore  gravissimam  et  notissimam ; 
ita  ut  cessent  omnes  publican  religionis  ceremoniae  et  sacrificia 
....  [Daniel  xii.  docet]  Antichristum  interdicturum  omnem 
divinum  cultum,  qui  in  ecclesiis  Cliristianorum  exercetur."  ^  Thus 
also  Stapleton  says  :  "  Pelli  sane  poterit  in  desertam  ecclesia,  reg- 
nante  Antichristi,  et  illo  momento  temporis  in  deserta,  id  est,  in 
locis  abitis,  in  speluncis,  in  latibulis  quo  sancti  se  recipient,  non 
incommode  quaeretur  ecclesia."  ^  During  the  reign  of  Antichrist, 
according  to  the  notes  to  the  Romish  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  2  Thessalonians  ii.,  "  The  external  state  of  the  Romish 
Church,  and  the  public  intercourse  of  the  faithful  with  it,  may 
cease.  Yet  the  due  honour  and  obedience  towards  the  Roman  see, 
and  the  communion  of  heart  with  it,  and  the  secret  practice  of  that 
communion,  and  the  open  confession  thereof,  if  the  occasion  re- 
quire, shall  not  cease."  Again  on  verse  4th  it  is  said,  "  The  great 
Antichrist  who  must  come  towards  the  world's  end,  shall  abolish 
all  other  religions,  true  and  false ;  and  put  down  the  blessed 
sacrament  of  the  altar,  wherein  consisteth  principally  the  wor- 
ship of  the  true  God,  and  also  all  idols  of  the  Gentiles."  "  The 
oblation  of  Christ's  blood,"  it  is  said,  "  is  to  be  abolished  among 
all  the  nations  and  churches  in  the  world." 

Finally,  concerning  the  kingdom  and  wars  of  Antichrist,  the 
Roman  cardinal  teaches,  (1.)  That  from  small  beginnings,  he  is 
by  fraud  and  deceit,  to  attain  the  kingdom  of  the  Jews.  (2.)  That 
he  is  to  subdue  and  take  possession  of  the  three  kingdoms  of 
Egypt,  Libya,  and  Ethiopia.  (Dan.  xi.)  (3.)  That  he  is  then  to 
reduce  to  subjection  the  other  seven  kingdoms  spoken  of  by  the 
prophet;  and  (4.)  That  with  an  innumerable  army,  he  shall 
make  for  a  time  successful  war  against  all  Christians  in  every 
part  of  the  world,  and  finally  be  overtlu-own  and  utterly  de- 
stroyed, as  described  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Revelation. 

From  this  review  it  appears  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  the- 

derived  their  sustenance,  wealth,  and  worshippers."  An  Exposition  of  the  Ajiocahjpse, 
p.  297. 

iBelhirmin,  De  Romano  Pu7itifice,  in.  vii.;  Disputationcs,  Paris  Z60S,  vol.  i.  pp.  721  e^ 
723  c. 

2  Princip.  Doct.  cap.  2. 


836  PART  IV.     Ch.   III. —  the   second   ADVENT. 

ologians  concerning  Anticlirist,  agrees  with  that  of  a  large  body 
of  modern  Protestant  writers  in  the  following  points :  (1.)  That 
he  is  to  be  an  individual,  and  not  a  corporation,  or  "  genus  homi- 
num."  (2.)  That  he  is  to  be  a  worldly  potentate.  (3.)  That  he 
is  to  attain  universal  dominion.  (4.)  That  he  is  to  be,  in  charac- 
ter, godless  and  reckless,  full  of  malignity  against  Christ  and  his 
people.  (5.)  That  by  his  seductions  and  persecutions  he  is  to  suc- 
ceed for  a  time  in  almost  banishing  true  religion  from  the  world. 
(6.)  That  his  reign  is  to  be  brief. 

The  principal  difference  between  the  early  Protestants  and 
the  modern  evangelical  interpreters,  is,  that  the  former  identify 
Babylon  and  Antichrist ;  that  is,  they  refer  to  one  and  the  same 
power  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  referring  to  the  little  horn ;  the 
description  given  by  the  Apostle  in  2  Thessalonians  ii.  ;  and  the 
account  of  the  beast  in  chapter  xiii.  of  the  Apocalypse  and  that 
given  in  chapter  xvii.  Whereas,  the  moderns  for  the  most  part 
distinguish  between  the  two.  The  papacy  they  regard  as  set 
forth  mider  the  symbol  of  Babylon ;  and  Antichrist,  as  a  worldly 
potentate,  under  the  beast  which  came  up  out  of  the  abyss.^ 

The  great  truth  set  forth  in  these  prophecies  is,  that  there  was 
future  in  the  time,  not  only  of  Daniel,  but  also  of  the  Apostles,  a 
great  apostasy  in  the  Church ;  that  this  apostasy  would  be  Anti- 
christian  (or  Antichrist),  ally  itself  with  the  world  and  become  a 
great  persecuting  power ;  and  that  the  two  elements,  the  ecclesi- 
astical and  the  worldly,  which  enter  into  this  great  Antichristian 
development,  will,  sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the  other, 
become  the  more  prominent ;  sometimes  acting  in  harmonj^  and 
sometimes  opposed  one  to  the  other ;  and,  therefore,  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  one,  and  sometimes  as  two  distinct  powers.  Both, 
as  united  or  as  separate,  are  to  be  overtaken  with  a  final  destruc- 
tion when  the  Lord  comes.  So  much  is  certain,  that  any  and 
every  power,  be  it  one  or  more,  which  answers  to  the  description 
given  in  Daniel  vii.  and  xi.  and  in  2  Thessalonians  ii.  is  Anti- 
christ in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term. 

According,  then,  to  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  the  three- 
great  events  which  are  to  precede  the  second  advent  of  Christ, 
are  the  universal  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  or  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentile  world  ;  the  national  conversion  of  the  -Tews  ;  and  the 
appearance  of  Antichrist. 

1  Ebvanl  says,  "  The  Reformers  and  the  early  theologians,  erred  only  in  this,  that  tliey 
identified  the  beast  that  was  to  remain  tliree  and  one  iialf  years  mentioned  in  Rev.  xiii. 
with  that  mentioned  in  ehap.  xvii.  That  is,  they  identilied  the  papacy  and  the  Antichns- 
tian  kingdom."     Christlichc  Dof/nutiik,  Ktinigsberg,  1852.  vol.  ii.  p.  736. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CONCOMITANTS   OF  THE   SECOND  ADVENT, 

The  events  which  according  to  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Church  are  to  attend  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  are  first,  the 
general  resurrection  of  the  dead;  second,  the  final  judgment; 
third,  "  the  end  of  the  world  ;  "  and  fourth,  the  consummation  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

§  1.  The  General  Resurrection. 

That  there  is  to  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the  just  and  of 
the  unjust,  is  not,  among  Christians,  a  matter  of  doubt.  Already 
in  the  book  of  Daniel  xii.  2,  it  is  said,  "  Many  of  them  that  sleep 
in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they  that  be 
wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament ;  and  they 
that  turn  many  to  righteousness,  as  stars  for  ever  and  ever." 
This  prediction  our  Lord  repeats  without  any  limitation.  "  Mar- 
vel not  at  this  :  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are 
in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  they 
that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that 
have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  (John  v.  28, 
29.)  Again :  "  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and 
all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
his  glory  :  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations."  (Matt. 
XXV.  31,  32.)  Paul,  in  his  speech  before  Felix  (Acts  xxiv.  15), 
avowed  it  as  his  own  faith  and  that  of  his  fathers  that  "  there  shall 
be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust."  John 
(Rev.  XX.  12,  13)  says  :  "  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand 
before  God  ;  and  the  books  were  opened  :  and  another  book  was 
opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life  :  and  the  dead  were  judged  oiit  of 
those  things  which  were  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their 
works.  And  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it ;  and 
death  and  hell  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them." 


838  PART   IV.     Cn.   IV.  — THE    SECOND  ADVENT. 

The   Time  of  this   General  Resurrection. 
The  uniform  representation  of  Scripture  on  this  subject  is  that 
this  general  resurrection  is  to  take  place  "  at  the  last  clay,"  or,  at 
the  second  coming  of  Christ.     The  same  form  of  expression  is 
used  to  designate  the  time  when    the  people   of    Christ   are  to 
rise,  and  the  time  when  the  general  resurrection  is  to  occur.     The 
Bible,  if  the  doubtful  passage  Revelation  xx.  4-6  be  excepted, 
never  speaks  of  any  other  than  one  resurrection.     The  dead,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures,  are  to  rise  together,  some  to  everlasting 
life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.     When  Christ 
comes,  all  who  are  in  their  graves  shall  come  forth,  some  to  the 
resurrection  of  life,  and  others  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation. 
When  in  1  Thessalonians  iv.  16,  it  is  said,  "  The  dead  in  Christ 
shall  rise  first,"  it  does  not  mean  that  there  are  to  be  two  resur- 
rections, one  of  those  who  are  in  Christ,  and  the  other  of  those 
who  are  not  in  Him.     The  Apostle   is   speaking  of  a  different 
subject.     He  comforts  the  Thessalonians  with  the  assurance,  that 
their  friends  who  sleep  in  Jesus  shall  not  miss  their  part  in  the 
glories  of  the  second  advent.     Those  then  alive  should  not  pre- 
vent, i.  e.,  precede,   those  who  were    asleep  ;    but,  the  dead  in 
Christ  should  rise  before  those  then  living  should  be  changed  ; 
and  then  both  should  be  caught  up  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air. 
The  parallel  passage  is  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  51,  52,  "  We  shall  not 
all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  t^vink- 
ling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and 
the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed." 
In  1  Corinthians  xv.  23,  24,  the  Apostle,  when  speaking  of  the 
resurrection,  says :  "  Every  man  in  his  own  order  :  Christ  the  first 
fruits ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming.     Then 
Cometh  the  end."     This  passage  is  often  understood  to  teach  that 
the  resurrection  takes  place  in  the  following  order :     (1.)  That  of 
Christ.     (2.)  That  of  his  people.     (3.)  Then  that  of  the  rest  of 
mankind.     And  as  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  that  of  his  peo- 
ple are  separated  by  a  long  interval ;  so  the  resurrection  of  the 
people  of  God  and  the  general  resurrection  may  also  be  separated 
by  an  interval  of  greater  or  less  duration.     This  interpretation 
supposes  that  the  word  "  end,"  as  here  used,  means  the  end  of 
the  resurrection.    To  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected,   (1.)  That 
it  is  opposed  to  the  .constant  "  usus  loquendi  "  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    The  "  end,"  when  thus  used,  always  elsewhere  means  the 
end  of  the  world.     In  1  Peter  iv.  7,  it  is  said :  "  The  end  of  aU 


§1.]  THE   GENERAL   RESURRECTION. 

things  is  at  hand."  Matthew  xxiv.  6,  "  The  end  is  not  yet ; " 
verse  14,  "  Then  shall  the  end  come."  So  in  Mark  xiii.  7,  Luke 
xxi.  9.  In  all  these  passages  the  "  end  "  means  the  end  of  the  world. 
(2.)  The  equivalent  expressions  serve  to  explain  the  meaning  of 
the  term.  The  disciples  asked  our  Lord,  "  What  shall  be  the 
sign  of  Thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  ?  "  In  answer 
to  that  question  Christ  said  that  certain  things  were  to  happen, 
but,  "  the  end  is  not  yet ; "  and  afterwards,  "  then  cometh  the 
end."  (Matt.  xxiv.  3,  6, 14.)  The  same  expression  occurs  in  the 
same  sense,  Matthew  xiii.  39,  xxviii.  20,  and  elsewhere.  (3.)  What 
immediately  follows  in  verse  24,  seems  decisive  in  favour  of  this 
interpretation.  The  end  spoken  of  is  when  Christ  shall  have  de- 
livered up  his  kingdom  ;  that  is,  when  the  whole  work  of  redemp- 
tion shall  have  been  consummated.  (4.)  It  is  further  to  be  re- 
marked that  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  Paul  does  not  make  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  chapter.  The  whole  concerns  the  resurrection  of 
believers.  That  was  what  the  errorists  in  Corinth  denied ;  and 
that  was  what  the  Apostle  undertook  to  prove  to  be  certain  and 
desirable.  Christ  certainly  rose  from  the  dead ;  so  all  his  people 
shall  rise ;  but  each  in  his  order ;  first,  Christ,  then  they  who  are 
Christ's ;  then  comes  the  end ;  the  end  of  all  things.  To  make 
this  refer  to  another  and  general  resurrection,  would  be  to  intro- 
duce a  subject  entirely  foreign  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

Meyer,  although  he  makes  reAos  in  the  24th  verse  refer  to  the 
resurrection,  nevertheless  says  ^  "  That  it  is  the  constant  doctrine 
of  the  New  Testament  (leaving  the  Apocalypse  out  of  view),  that 
with  the  coming  of  Christ  the  '  finis  hujus  saeculi '  is  connected, 
so  that  the  Second  Advent  is  the  termination  of  the  ante-messi- 
anic, and  the  commencement  of  the  future  world-period." 

Luthardt  says,^  "  Then,  not  before  the  resurrection,  .  .  . 
comes  the  end  ;  the  end,  not  of  the  resurrection,  that  is  the  resur- 
rection of  others  than  believers,  but  the  absolute  end ;  the  end  of 
history."  Whether  the  end  of  all  things  is  to  follow  the  resurrec- 
tion of  believers  immediately,  or  long  afterwards,  is,  in  his  view,  a 
different  question.  He  admits  that  the  common  view  is  tliat  the 
coming  of  Christ,  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  general 
judgment,  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  new  heavens  and  new 
earth,  are  to  occur  contemporaneously.     His  own  view  is  different. 

That  the  New  Testament  does  teach  that  the  general  resurrec- 
tion is  to  occur  at  the  time  of  the  Second  Advent  appears  :  — 

1  Commentar  iiber  das  Neue  Testament,  2d  edit..  Gottingen,  1849,  vol.  v.  p.  323. 

2  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  Leipzig,  1861,  p.  127. 


840  PART  IV.     Ch.   IV. —  THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

1.  From  sucli  passages  as  the  following  ;  In  the  passage  in  Daniel, 
quoted  above,  it  is  said,  that  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  are  to 
rise  together ;  the  one  to  life,  the  other  to  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt.  This  passage  our  Lord  reiterates,  saying  that  "  the 
hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear 
his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto 
the  resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  damnation."  (John  v.  28,  29.)  In  Matthew  xxv. 
31,  32,  it  is  said,  that  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  appear  in  his 
glory  all  nations  shall  stand  before  him.     The  same  is  said  in 

9  Revelation^  xx.  12,  13.  In  2  Thessalonians  i.  7-10,  it  is  taught 
that  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven,  it  will 
be  to  take  vengeance  on  those  who  obey  not  the  Gospel,  and  to 
be  glorified  in  all  them  that  believe.  In  all  these  passages  the 
resurrection  of  the  righteous  is  declared  to  be  contemporaneous 
with  that  of  the  wicked. 

2.  There  is  another  class  of  passages  which  teach  that  the  res- 
urrection of  the  righteous  is  to  take  place  at  "  the  last  day," 
and,  therefore,  not  a  thousand  years  before  that  event.  Thus 
Martha,  speaking  of  her  brother  Lazarus,  said,  "  I  know  that  he 
shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day."  (John  xi. 
24.)  Our  Lord,  in  John  vi.  39,  says  that  it  is  the  Father's  will 
"  that  of  all  which  He  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose  nothing,  but 
should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last  day."  This  declaration  is  re- 
peated in  verses  40,  44,  54,  comp.  xii.  48 :  "  The  word  that  I 
have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day."  It  is 
true  that  the  expressions  "  the  last  time,"  "  the  last  day,"  "  the 
end  of  days,"  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  are  often  used  very  in- 
definitely in  Scripture.  They  often  mean  nothing  more  than 
"  hereafter."  But  this  is  not  true  with  the  phrase  ei'  rfj  irrxdrr) 
rjp.epa  as  used  in  these  passages.  "  In  the  last  day,"  is  a  known 
and  definite  period.  It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that  what  is 
predicted  to  happen  on  "  the  last  day,"  is  elsewhere  said  to  take 
place  when  Christ  shall  appear  in  his  glory. 

3.  A  third  class  of  passages  teach  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints  is  to  take  place  at  the  day  of  judgment  and  in  connection 
with  that  event.  According  to  the  common  representations  of 
Scripture,  when  Christ  shall  come  the  second  time,  the  dead  are  to 
rise,  all  nations  are  to  be  judged,  and  the  present  order  of  things 
is  to  cease.  The  heavens  are  to  retain  Christ,  "  until  the  times 
of  restitution  of  all  things."  (Acts  iii.  21.)  This  dTro/caracrTacns  is 
*'  die  Wiederherstellunec  aller  Dinge  in  ihren  friihern  vollkomm- 


§1.]  THE  GENERAL  RESURRECTION.  841 

nem  Zustand,"  ^  the  restoration  of  all  things  to  their  original 
perfect  condition.  "  This  consummation  may  be  called  a  '  resti- 
tution,' in  allusion  to  a  circle  which  returns  into  itself,  or  more 
probably  because  it  really  involves  the  healing  of  all  curable 
disorder  and  the  restoration  to  communion  Asdth  the  Deity  of  all 
that  He  has  chosen  to  be  so  restored.  Till  this  great  cycle  has 
achieved  its  revolution,  and  this  great  remedial  process  has  accom- 
plished its  design,  the  glorified  body  of  the  risen  and  ascended 
Christ  not  only  may,  but  must,  as  an  appointed  means  of  that 
accomplishment,  be  resident  in  heaven,  and  not  on  earth."  ^ 

The  general  resurrection  is  represented  as  connected  with  the 
final  judgment,  in  Matthew  xxiv.  30,  31,  and  xxv.  31-46, 
2  Thessalonians  i.  7-10,  and  elsewhere.  On  this  point  Dr. 
Julius  Miiller  says :  "  It  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  Scripture  that 
the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead  contemporaneous  with  the 
transfiguration  of  believers  then  living  on  earth  is  to  occur  at  the 
end  of  the  world  (or  of  history),  at  the  reappearance  of  Christ 

for  judgment  and   for  the  glorification  of   his  kingdom 

With  this  consummation  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  the  therewith 

connected    dTroAurpwo-is   tov  aoj/^aros  rjfjiwv  utto   tt}^   SouAetas  rf/s    (^(9opa?, 

the  Apostle,  in  the  profound  passage,  Romans  viii.  19-23,  sets 
forth,  as  also  connected  with  these  events,  the  renovation  of  the 
nature  of  the  earth  and  its  exaltation  to  a  participation  in  the 
glory  of  the  children  of  God.  As  the  body  of  man  stands  in 
intimate  relation  with  nature,  ....  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
form  any  idea  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ....  without 
assuming  a  corresponding  exaltation  of  the  external  world  as  the 
theatre  of  his  new  life.  This  renovation  of  nature,  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth,  takes  for  granted,  according  to  the 
Apostle,  the  destruction  of  the  world  as  it  now  is."  ^  With  these 
views,  which  accord  with  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
Lange  avows  his  entire  agreement.* 

The  only  passage  which  seems  to  teach  that  there  is  to  be  a 
first  and  second  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  former  being  con- 
fined to  martyrs  and  more  or  fewer  of  the  saints,  and  the  latter 
including  "  the  rest  of  the  dead,"  is  Revelation  xx.  4-6.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  that  passage,  taken  by  itseK,  does  seem  to 
teach  the  doctrine  founded  upon  it.     But  — 

1  De  Wette,  Exegetisches  Eandbuch  zum  Neuen  Testament,  Leipzig,  1845,  vo..  i.  part  4, 
p.  48. 

2  The  Ads  of  the  Apostles  Eoqylained.    By  Joseph  Addison  Alexander.    Ifew  York, 
1857,  vol.  i.  p.  118. 

3  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1835,  pp.  783-785. 

*  Lehre  row  den  letzen  Dingen,  Meurs,  1841,  pp.  246,  247. 


842  PART  IV.     Cn.   IV.  — THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

1.  It  is  a  sound  rule  in  tlie  interpretation  of  Scripture  that 
obscure  passages  should  be  so  explained  as  to  make  them  agree 
with  those  that  are  plain.  It  is  unreasonable  to  make  the  sym- 
bolic and  figurative  language  of  prophecy  and  poetry  the  rule  by 
which  to  explain  the  simple  didactic  prose  language  of  the  Bible. 
It  is  no  less  unreasonable  that  a  multitude  of  passages  should  be 
taken  out  of  their  natural  sense  to  make  them  accord  with  a  sin- 
gle passage  of  doubtful  import. 

2.  It  is  conceded  that  the  Apocalypse  is  an  obscure  book. 
This  almost  every  reader  knows  from  his  own  experience ;  and 
it  is  proved  to  be  true,  the  few  who  imagine  it  to  be  plain  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  by  the  endless  diversity  of  interpreta- 
tions to  which  it  has  been  subjected.  This  diversity  exists  not 
only  between  commentators  of  different  classes,  as  rationalistic 
and  orthodox,  but  between  those  of  the  same  class,  and  even  of 
the  same  school.  This  remark,  which  applies  to  the  whole  book, 
applies  with  special  force  to  the  passage  under  consideration. 

3.  The  Bible  speaks  of  a  spiritual,  or  figurative,  as  well  as  of  a 
literal  resurrection.  This  figure  is  used  both  in  reference  to  indi- 
viduals and  in  reference  to  communities.  The  sinner,  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  is  said  to  be  quickened  and  raised  again  in 
Christ  Jesus.  (Rom.  vi.  and  Eph.  ii.)  Whole  communities, 
when  elevated  from  a  state  of  depression  and  misery,  are  in  pro- 
phetic language  said  to  be  raised  from  the  dead.  (Rom.  xi.  15 ; 
Is.  xxvi.  19.)  "  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  together  with  my 
dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in 
dust ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall 
cast  out  the  dead."  (Ez.  xxxvii.  12.)  "  I  will  open  your 
graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves,  and 
bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel."  More  than  this,  Elias 
is  said  to  have  lived  again  in  John  the  Baptist  ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  a  common  interpretation,  the  two  witnesses  spoken 
of  in  the  Apocalypse  are  Moses  and  Elias,  who  are  to  rise 
not  in  person,  but  as  represented  by  men  filled  with  the 
same  spirit,  endued  Avith  similar  gifts,  and  called  to  exercise 
the  same  offices.  It  would,  therefore,  not  be  inconsistent  with 
the  analogy  of  prophecy  if  we  should  understand  the  Apostle  as 
here  predicting  that  a  new  race  of  men  were  to  arise  filled  with 
the  spirit  of  the  martyrs,  and  were  to  live  and  reign  with  Christ 
a  thousand  years.  According  to  Hengstenberg,  the  Apostle  saw 
the  souls  of  the  martyrs  in  heaven.  There  they  were  enthroned. 
This  was  their  first  resurrection.     "  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  he 


§  I.]  THE    Gr.NERAL   RESURRECTION. 

says,  "  that  by  the  first   resurrection  we  are  here  primarily  to 
understand  that  first  stage  of  blessedness."  ^ 

4.  John  does  not  say  that  the  bodies  of  the  martyrs  are  to  be 
raised  from  the  dead.  He  says  :  "I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that 
were  beheaded  for  the  witness  of  Jesus."  The  resurrection  of 
tlie  dead  is  never  thus  spol^en  of  in  Scripture.  There  is  a  sense 
in  which  the  martyrs  are  said  to  live  again,  but  nothing  is  said 
of  their  rising  again  from  their  graves.  The  first  resurrection 
may  be  spiritual,  and  the  second  literal.  There  may  be  a  time 
of  great  prosperity  in  the  Church,  in  which  it  will  be  a  great 
blessing  to  participate.  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  force  in  this 
argument,  as  the  Apostle  does  not  speak  of  a  resurrection  of 
souls.  He  simply  says  he  saw  the  souls  of  the  martyrs ;  as  in 
chapter  vi.  9,  it  is  said :  "I  saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of 
them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of  God."  The  prophet, 
according  to  xx.  4,  first  saw  the  martyrs  in  the  state  of  the  dead, 
and  then  he  saw  them  alive.  The  argument,  however,  is  not 
founded  merely  on  the  use  of  the  word  "  souls,"  but  on  the  fact 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  never  spoken  of  in  the  Scrip- 
tures in  the  way  in  which  the  living  again  of  the  martyrs  is  here 
described. 

5.  The  common  millenarian  doctrine  is,  that  there  is  to  be  a 
literal  resurrection  when  Christ  shall  come  to  reign  in  person 
upon  the  earth,  a  thousand  years  before  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  that  the  risen  saints  are  to  dwell  here  and  share  with  Christ  in 
the  glories  of  his  reign.  But  this  seems  to  be  inconsistent  with 
what  is  taught  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  50.  Paul  there  says  :  "  Now 
this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God  ;  neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption."  It 
is  here  expressly  asserted  that  our  bodies  as  now  constituted  are 
not  adapted  to  the  state  of  things  which  shall  exist  when  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  inaugurated.  We  must  all  be  changed. 
From  this  it  follows  that  the  spiritual  body  is  not  adapted  to  our 
present  mode  of  existence  ;  that  is,  it  is  not  suited  or  designed 
for  an  earthly  kingdom.  Luthardt  admits  this.  He  admits  that 
the  renovated,  or  transfigured,  body  of  necessity  supposes  a  ren- 
ovated earth.  He  admits  also  that  w'hen  the  bodies  of  believers 
are  thus  changed  they  are  to  be  caught  up  from  the  earth,  and 
are  to  dwell  with  Christ  in  heaven.  When  Christ  appears,  his 
people  are  to  appear  with  Him  in  glory.  Bengel,  and  after  him 
others,  endeavour  to  reconcile  these  admissions  with  the  theory  oi 

1  The  Revelation  of  St.  John  Expounded,  edit.  Edinburgh.  18&2,  vol.  ii.  p.  281. 


844    PART  IV.  Ch.  IV.  — the  second  advent. 

an  earthly  kingdom  of  glory,  by  assuming  that  risen  saints  are 
to  rule  this  kingdom,  not  from  the  literal  Jerusalem,  but  from 
heaven.  This,  however,  is  to  introduce  an  extra-scriptural  and 
conjectural  idea. 

6.  It  has  already  been  said,  when  speaking  of  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land,  that  this  whole  theory  of  a  splen- 
did earthly  kingdom  is  a  relic  of  Judaism,  and  out  of  keeping 
with  the  spirituality  of  the  Gospel.^ 

All  this  is  said  with  diffidence  and  submission.  The  inter- 
pretation of  unfulfilled  prophecy  experience  teaches  is  exceed- 
ingly precarious.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  pre- 
dictions concerning  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  and  the  events 
which  are  to  attend  and  follow  it,  will  disappoint  the  expecta- 
tions of  commentators,  as  the  expectations  of  the  Jews  were  dis- 
appointed in  the  manner  in  which  the  prophecies  concerning  the 
first  advent  were  accomplished. 

«  §  2.    The  Final  Judgment. 

The  Scriptures  abound  in  passages  which  set  forth  God  as  the 
moral  ruler  of  men ;  which  declare  that  He  will  judge  the  world 
in  righteousness.  The  Bible  represents  Him  as  the  judge  of 
nations  and  of  individuals  ;  as  the  avenger  of  the  poor  and  the 
persecuted.  It  abounds  also  in  promises  and  in  threatenings, 
and  in  illustrations  of  the  righteous  judgments  of  God.  Nothing, 
therefore,  is  plainer  than  that  men  in  this  world  are  subject  to 
the  moral  goverimient  of  God.  Besides  this,  the  Bible  also 
teaches  that  there  is  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punishment,  in 
which  the  inequalities  and  anomalies  here  permitted  shall  be 
adjusted.  According  to  some,  this  is  all  that  the  Bible  teaches 
on  the  subject.  What  is  said  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked 
and  of  the  reward  of  the  righteous  is  to  be  understood  in  this 
general  way.  Tliis  is  the  doctrine  of  the  common  school  of 
Rationalists.^  Bretschneider  ^  admits,  however,  that  reason  has 
nothing  to  object  to  the  Church  doctrine  on  this  subject  prop- 
erly understood. 

1  The  interpretation  of  this  whole  passage  (Rev.  xx.  1-6)  is  thoroughly  discussed  in  the 
very  able  work  of  the  Rev.  David  Brown,  of  St.  James'  Free  Church,  Glasgow,  entitled, 
Ckrisrs  Second  Coming:  Will  it  be  Pre-Millenial  f  chapter  x.  edit.  New  York,  1851, 
p.  218  ff. 

2  J.  A.  L.  Wegscheider,  Institutioncs  Theologicce,  iv.  ii.  99 ;  5th  edit.  Halle,  1826,  p.  614  ff 
i  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche,   §  172,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1828;  vol.  ii 

p.  445. 


§2.]  THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT.  845 

A  second  view  of  the  last  judgment  assumes  it  to  be  a  process 
now  in  progress.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  Messianic  period  ia 
spoken  of  as  the  "  last  day,"  "  the  last  time,"  "  the  end  of  days," 
"  the  end  of  the  world,"  and  is  represented  as  a  time  of  conflict 
and  of  judgment.  The  Jews  expected  that  when  the  Messiah, 
came,  the  severest  judgments  would  fall  upon  the  heathen,  and 
that  the  chosen  people  would  be  greatly  exalted  and  blessed. 
This  was  the  day  of  judgment.  Those  who  give  substantially 
the  same  interpretation  to  the  Old  Testament  prophecies,  hold 
that  the  day  of  judgment  covers  the  whole  period  between  the 
first  and  second  advents  of  Christ. 

A  third  doctrine  is  that  the  world  in  its  progress  works  out  all 
possible  manifestations  of  God,  so  that  according  to  the  stereo- 
typed dictum  of  Schelling,  Die  Weltgeschichte  ist  das  Welt- 
gericht ;  the  history  of  the  world  is  the  judgment  of  the  world. 
Premillenarians  use  precisely  the  same  words,  although  not  in  the 
same  philosophical  sense.  AVith  them  "  to  judge  "  is  to  reign  ; 
and  when  Christ  comes  to  establish  his  personal  reign  upon  earth, 
the  last  judgment  will  begin,  and  "  the  judgment  of  God  is  the 
administration  of  the  government  of  God."  ^ 

A  fourth  theory  may  be  mentioned.  There  are  certain  immut- 
able laws,  either  independent,  as  some  say,  of  the  will  of  God, 
or  dependent  on  his  voluntary  constitution,  which  secure  that  the 
righteous  shall  be  happy  and  the  wicked  miserable ;  and  this  ia 
all  that  either  reason  or  Scripture,  properly  understood,  teaches 
of  rewards  and  punishment. 

A  fifth  doctrine  is  that  the  day  of  judgment  is  a  protracted 
future  dispensation,  as  just  mentioned,  to  commence  with  the 
second  advent  of  Christ,  and  to  continue  during  the  thousand 
years  of  his  personal  reign  upon  the  earth.  This  theory. is  con- 
nected with  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-millenial  advent  of  Christ. 

The    Church    Doctrine. 

By  the  Church  doctrine  is  meant  that  doctrine  which  is  held 
by  the  Church  universal ;  by  Romanists  and  Protestants  in  the 
West,  and  by  the  Greeks  in  tlie  East.  That  doctrine  includes 
the  following  points  :  — 

1.  The  final  judgment  is  a  definite  future  event  (not  a  pro- 
tracted process),  when  the  eternal  destiny  of  men  and  of  angels 
shall  be  finally  determined  and  publicly  manifested.  That  this 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  is  proved  by  such  passages  as  the 

I  The  Last  Times,  by  Joseph  A.  Seiss,  D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  18GG,  p.  141. 


846  PART  IV.    Ch.  IV.- the   second  ADVENT. 

following :  Matthew  xi.  24,  "  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the 
laud  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee  ;  "  Matthew 
xiii.  30,  "Let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest:  and  in  the 
time  of  harvest  I  will  say  to  the  reapers,  Gather  ye  together  first 
the  tares,  and  bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them  :  but  gather  the 
wheat  into  my  barn  ;  "  verse  39,  "  The  harvest  is  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  the  reapers  are  the  angels  ;  "  vei'se  49,  "  So  shall  it  be 
at  the  end  of  the  world :  the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever 
the  wicked  from  among  the  just ;  "  John  xii.  48,  "  The  word  tliat 
I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day ;  "  Acts 
xviii.  31,  God  "  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  He  will  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness ; "  Romans  ii.  5,  "  The  day  of  wrath  and 
revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ;  "  and  1  Corinthians 
iv.  5,  "  Judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come."  It  is 
true  that  the  word  "  day "  in  Scripture  is  often  used  for  an 
indefinite  period;  as  "the  day  of  the  Lord,"  is  the  time  of  the 
Lord.  And,  therefore,  it  does  not  follow  from  the  use  of  this 
word,  that  the  judgment  is  to  be  commenced  and  ended  in  the 
space  of  twenty-four  hours.  Nevertheless,  the  way  in  which  the 
word  is  used  in  this  connection,  and  the  circumstances  with  which 
the  judgment  is  connected,  show  that  a  definite  and  limited 
period,  and  not  a  protracted  dispensation,  is  intended  by  the 
term.  The  appearance  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  the  gathering  of  the  nations,  are  not  events  which  are  to 
be  protracted  through  years  or  centuries. 

2.  Christ  is  to  be  the  judge.  John  v.  22,  23,  "  The  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son ; 
that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father ; "  verse  27,  "  And  hath  given  Him  authority  to  execute 
judgment  also,  because  He  is  the  Son  of  Man."  Peter,  in  Acts 
x.  34-43,  says  that  God  "  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  Avitli  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  ;  "  had  "  raised  "  Him  from  the  dead 
"  and  shewed  Him  openly,"  and  "  commanded  us  to  preach  unto 
the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  He  wliicli  was  ordained  of 
God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead."  Paul,  in  his  speech  on 
Mars'  Hill,  tells  the  Athenians  that  God  "hath  appointed  a  day, 
m  the  which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that 
man  whom  He  hath  ordained  ;  whereof  He  hath  given  assurance 
unto  all  men,  in  that  He  hath  raised  Him  from  the  dead."  (Acts 
xvii.  31.)  And  in  2  Corinthians  v.  10,  he  says,  "  We  must  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ."  Our  Lord  saj^s  that  He 
will  say  to  the  wicked,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  that  work  iniqiat}''.' 


§  2.J  THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT.  847 

(Matt.  V.  23  ;  Luke  xiii,  27.)  In  all  the  graphic  descriptions  given 
in  the  New  Testament  of  the  process  of  the  final  judgment, 
Christ  is  represented  as  acting  as  the  judge.  On  this  point  it  is 
to  be  observed:  (1.)  That  He  is  set  forth  as  acting  on  his  own 
authority ;  and  not  m,erely  as  the  "  Bevollmiichter,"  or  plenipo- 
tentiary of  God.  Everywhere  in  the  New  Testament,  our  re- 
sjDonsibility  is  said  to  be  to  Him.  We  are  to  stand  before  his 
judgment-seat.  He  will  say,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed."  It 
is  He,  who  is  to  bring  every  secret  thing  into  judgment.  (2.)  He 
is  qualified  thus  to  sit  in  judgment  on  men  and  angels ;  because 
He  is  omniscient,  and  infinite  in  justice  and  mercy.  (3.)  It  is 
especially  appropriate  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh,  should  be  the  jndge  of  all  men.  He  has  this  author- 
ity committed  to  Him  because  He  is  the  Son  of  man ;  because, 
although  in  the  form  of  God,  and  thinking  it  no  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God,  He  humbled  Himself  to  be  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man.  Tliis  is  part  of  his  exaltation,  due  to  Him  because  He  con- 
sented to  become  obedient  unto  death.  It  is  meet  that  He  who 
stood  condemned  at  the  bar  of  Pilate,  should  sit  enthroned  on  the 
seat  of  universal  judgment.  It  is  a  joy  and  ground  of  special 
confidence  to  all  believers,  that  He  who  loved  them  and  gave 
Himself  for  them,  shall  be  their  judge  on  the  last  day. 

3.  This  judgment  is  to  take  place  at  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  and  at  the  general  resurrection.  Therefore  it  is  not  a  pro- 
cess now  in  progress  ;  it  does  not  take  place  at  death ;  it  is  not  a 
protracted  period  prior  to  the  general  resurrection.  A  few  of  the 
passages  bearing  on  this  point  are  the  following :  In  the  parable 
of  the  wheat  and  the  tares  (Matt.  xiii.  37-43),  already  referred  tvj, 
we  are  taught  that  the  final  separation  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  is  to  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  world,  when  the  Son 
of  Man  shall  send  forth  his  angels  to  gather  out  of  his  kingdom 
all  things  that  offend.  This  implies  that  the  general  resurrection, 
the  second  advent,  and  the  last  judgment,  are  contemporaneous 
events.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  three  personal  advents  of 
Christ :  one  at  the  time  of  the  incarnation ;  a  second  before  the 
millennium ;  and  a  third  to  judge  the  world.  He  who  came  in 
the  flesh,  is  to  come  a  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 
Matthew  xvi.  27,  "  The  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  with  his  angels ;  and  then  He  shall  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works."  Matthew  xxiv.  29-35,  teaches  that  when 
the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  appears  in  the  heavens,  all  the  tribes 
of   the  earth   shall   mourn,  and  the  elect  shall  be  gathered  in. 


848        PART  IV.   Ch.  IV.  — the  second  advent. 

Matthew  xxv.  31-46  sets  forth  the  whole  process  of  the  judgment. 
When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  all  nations  shall  be 
gathered  before  Him,  and  He  shall  separate  them  as  a  shepherd 
divideth  the  sheep  from  the  goats  ;  and  then  shall  He  say  to 
those  on  his  right  hand.  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father  ;  and  to 
those  on  the  left,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed.  1  Corinthians  iv.  5, 
"  Judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come,  who  both 
will  bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  will  make 
manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts :  and  then  shall  every  man 
have  praise  of  God."  When  Christ  comes,  the  general  judgment 
is  to  occur.  In  2  Thessalonians  i.  7-10,  it  is  taught  that  when 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven,  it  will  be  for 
the  double  purpose  of  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 
God,  and  of  being  glorified  in  all  them  that  believe.  In  2  Timothy 
iv.  1,  it  is  said :  The  Lord  Jesus  Cln-ist  "  shall  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead  at  his  appearing,  and  his  kingdom."  In  the  fif- 
teenth chapter  of  First  Corinthians,  the  Apostle  expressly  teaches 
that  corruption  cannot  inherit  incorruption,  that  our  present  vile 
bodies  must  be  changed  before  they  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God ;  and  this  change  from  the  natural  to  the  spiritual,  from 
mortal  to  immortal,  is  to  take  place  at  the  last  trump  ;  and  in 
Philippians  iii.  20,  21,  he  says  it  is  to  occur  when  Christ  comes 
from  heaven,  who  shall  fashion  our  bodies  like  unto  his  own 
glorious  body.  In  all  these  different  ways  it  is  taught  that 
the  general  judgment  is  to  take  place  at  the  second  coming  of 
Christ. 

4.  The  persons  to  be  judged  are  men  and  angels.  In  several 
passages  already  quoted  it  is  said  that  Christ  is  to  come  to  judge 
"  the  quick  and  the  dead  ; "  in  others  it  is  said,  "  all  nations  are 
to  stand  before  Him;"  in  others,  that  "we  must  all  appear 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ;"  in  others  again  it  is  said 
that  "  He  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  Avorks."  This 
judgment,  therefore,  is  absolutely  universal ;  it  includes  both 
small  and  great ;  and  all  the  generations  of  men.  With  regard 
to  the  evil  angels,  it  is  said  that  God  "  delivered  them  into  chains 
of  darkless,  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment."  (2  Pet.  ii.  4.)  Satan 
is  said  to  be  the  God  of  this  world.  The  conflict  in  which  believers 
are  engaged  in  this  life,  is  Avith  principalities  and  powers  and 
spiritual  wickedness  in  heaven,  tr  tcl^  tVorpai /'u?.  This  conflict  is 
to  continue  until  the  Second  Advent,  Avhen  Satan  and  his  angels 
are  to  be  cast  into  the  pit. 

The  older  theologians  speculated  on  the  manner  in  which  the 


§  2.]  THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT.  849 

judgment  is  to  be  arranged,  so  as  to  admit  of  the  countless  mill- 
ions of  human  beings  who  shall  have  lived  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world  to  the  final  consummation  being  so  congregated  as  to 
be  all  gathered  before  the  throne  of  the  Son  of  IN'Ian.  The  com- 
mon answer  to  that  difficulty  was  that  the  throne  is  to  be  so  ex- 
alted and  so  glorious  as  to  be  visible,  as  are  the  sun  and  moon, 
from  a  large  part  of  the  earth's  surface  at  the  same  time.  These, 
however,  are  questions  about  wliich  we  need  give  ourselves  no 
concern;  these  descriptions  of  the  judgment  are  designed  to  teach 
us  moral  truths,  and  not  the  physical  phenomena  by  which  the 
solemn  adjudication  on  the  destmy  of  men  is  to  be  attended. 

5.  The  ground  or  matter  of  judgment  is  said  to  be  the  "  deeds 
done  in  the  body,"  men  are  to  be  judged  "  according  to  their 
works  ; "  "  the  secrets  of  the  heart "  are  to  be  brought  to  light. 
God's  judgment  will  not  be  founded  on  the  professions,  or  the  re- 
lations of  men,  or  on  the  appearance  or  reputation  which  they 
sustain  among  their  fellows ;  but  on  their  real  character  and  on 
their  acts,  however  secret  and  covered  from  the  sight  of  men 
those  acts  may  have  been.  God  will  not  be  mocked  and  cannot 
be  deceived  ;  the  character  of  every  man  will  be  clearly  revealed. 
(1.)  In  the  sight  of  God.  (2.)  In  the  sight  of  the  man  himself. 
All  seK  deception  will  be  banished.  Every  man  will  see  himself 
as  he  appears  in  the  sight  of  God.  His  memory  will  probably 
prove  an  indelible  register  of  all  his  sinful  acts  and  thoughts  and 
feelings.  His  conscience  will  be  so  enlightened  as  to  recognize 
the  justice  of  the  sentence  which  the  righteous  judge  shall  pro- 
nomice  upon  him.  All  whom  Christ  condemns  will  be  self-con- 
demned. (3.)  There  will  be  such  a  revelation  of  the  character  of 
every  man  to  all  around  him,  or  to  all  who  know  him,  as  shall 
render  the  justice  of  the  sentence  of  condeimiation  or  acquittal 
apparent.  Beyond  this  the  representations  of  Scripture  do  not 
require  us  to  go. 

Besides  these  general  representations  of  Scripture  that  the  char- 
acter and  conduct  of  men  is  the  ground  on  wliicli  the  final  sen- 
tence is  to  be  pronounced,  there  is  clear  intimation  in  the  Word 
of  God,  that,  so  far  as  those  who  hear  the  Gospel  are  concerned, 
their  future  destiny  depends  on  the  attitude  which  they  assume 
to  Christ.  He  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  Him  not ; 
but  to  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power  to  be- 
come the  sons  of  God.  He  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ;  He 
came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners  ;  aU  who  receive  Him  as  their 

God  and  Saviour,  are  saved  ;  all  who  refuse  to  recognize  and  trust 
VOL.  III.  54 


850  PART  IV.     Ch.   IV.  — the   second   ADVENT. 

Him,  perish.  They  are  condemned  already,  because  they  have 
not  beHeved  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  He 
that  beheveth  on  the  Son  hath  everlastmg  life  ;  he  that  believeth 
not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him.  Whosoever  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  con- 
fess before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall 
deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven.  When  the  Jews  asked  our  Lord,  What  shall  we 
do  that  we  might  work  the  works  of  God  ?  his  answer  was,  "  This 
is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  He  hath  sent." 
In  the  solemn  account  given  of  the  last  j  udgment  in  Matthew  xxv. 
31-46,  the  inquest  concerns  the  conduct  of  men  towards  Clirist. 
And  the  Apostle  says.  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
let  him  be  Anathema  Maranatlia.  The  special  ground  of  condem- 
nation, therefore,  under  the  Gospel  is  unbelief  ;  the  refusal  to  re- 
ceive Christ  in  the  character  in  which  He  is  presented  for  our 
acceptance. 

6.  Men  are  to  be  judged  according  to  the  light  which  they  have 
severally  enjoyed.  The  servant  that  knew  his  Lord's  will,  and 
did  it  not,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  strij)es  ;  but  he  that  knew 
it  not,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.  "  For  unto  whomsoever 
much  is  given,  of  him  shall  be  much  required."  Our  Lord  says 
that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable,  in  the  day  of  •  judgment,  for  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  than  for  the  men  of  his  generation.  Paul  says  that  the 
heathen  are  inexcusable,  because  that  when  they  knew  God,  they 
glorified  Him  not  as  God  ;  and  he  lays  do-wn  the  principle  that 
they  who  sin  without  law,  shall  be  judged  without  law  ;  and  that 
they  who  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law. 

7.  At  the  judgment  of  the  last  day  the  destiny  of  the  right- 
eous and  of  the  mcked  shall  be  unalterably  determined.  Each 
class  shall  be  assigned  to  its  final  abode.  This  is  taught  in  the 
solemn  words :  "  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  pmiish- 
ment :  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal." 

How  far  the  descriptions  of  the  process  of  the  last  judgment, 
given  in  the  Bible,  are  to  be  understood  literally,  it  is  useless  te 
inquire.  Two  things  are  remarkable  about  the  prophecies  of 
Scripture,  which  have  already  been  accomplished.  The  one  is 
that  the  fulfilment  has,  in  many  cases,  been  very  different  from 
that  which  a  literal  interpretation  led  men  to  anticiiDate.  The 
other  is,  that  in  some  cases  they  have  been  fulfilled  even  to  the 
most  minute  details.  These  facts  should  render  us  modest  in  our 
interpretation   of  those  predictions  which  remain  to  be  accom- 


§  3.]  THE   END   OF   THE   WORLD.  851 

plished ;  satisfied  that  what  we  know  not  now  we  shall  know 

§  3.  The  End  of  the  World. 
The  principal  passages  of  Scriptures  relating  to  the  final  con- 
summation or  the  end  of  the  world,  are  the  following :  Psalm 
cii.  25,  26,  "  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth ; 
and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy  hands.  They  shall  perish, 
but  thou  shalt  endure  ;  yea,  all  of  them  shall  wax  old  as  a  gar- 
ment ;  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  be 
changed."  Isaiah  li.  6,  "  Lift  up  your  eyes  to  the  heavens,  and 
look  upon  the  earth  beneath  ;  for  the  heavens  shall  vanish  away 
like  smoke,  and  the  earth  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment."  Isaiah 
Ixv.  17,  "  Behold,  J  create  new  heavens,  and  a  new  earth :  and 
the  former  shall  not  be  remembered  nor  come  into  mind."  Luke 
xxi.  33,  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away :  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away."  Romans  viii.  19-21,  "  The  earnest  ex- 
pectation of  the  creature  (ktio-i?,  creation)  waiteth  for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God.  For  the  creature  was  made  subject 
to  vanity,  not  -willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  sub- 
jected the  same  in  hope,  because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be 
delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty 
of.  the  children  of  God."  2  Peter  iii.  6-13,  "  The  world  that 
then  was,  being  overflowed  with  water,  perished :  but  the  heavens 
and  earth  which  are  now,  by  the  same  word  are  kept  in  store, 
reserved  unto  fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of 

ungodly  men The  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a  thief  in 

the  night ;  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  Avith  a  great 
noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat ;  the  earth 

also,  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up 

Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look  for  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness."  Revelation 
XX.  11,  "  I  saw  a  great  white  throne,  and  Him  that  sat  on  it, 
from  whose  face  the  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away  ;  and  there 
was  found  no  place  for  them."  Revelation  xxi.  1,  "I  saAv  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth  :  for  the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth 
were  passed  away  ;  and  there  Avas  no  more  sea." 

Remarks. 

1.  These  passages  are  not  to  be  understood  as  predicting  great 
political  and  moral  revolutions.  .  It  is  possible  that  some  of  them 
might  bear  that  interpretation  :  but  otliers  are  evidently  intended 
to  be  understood  in  a  more  literal  sense.     This  is  especially  the 


852  PART   IV.     Cir.   IV.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

case  with  2  Peter  iii.  6-13,  in  wliich  the  Apostle  contrasts  the 
destruction  of  the  world  by  the  waters  of  the  deluge  with  the 
destruction  by  fire  which  is  still  future.  If  the  fact  be  estab- 
lished that  the  Scriptures  anywhere  clearly  predict  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  world  at  the  last  day,  that  fact  becomes  a  rule  for  the 
interpretation  of  the  more  doubtful  passages.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  predicted  destruction  of  our  earth  out  of  analogy  with  the 
course  of  nature.  Stars  once  clearly  visible  in  the  firmament,  after 
a  brief  period  of  unusual  splendour,  have  disappeared ;  to  all 
appearance  they  have  been  burnt  up.  Scientific  men  tell  us  that 
there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  earth  was  once  in  a  state  of 
fusion  ;  and  there  are  causes  in  operation  which  are  adequate  to 
reduce  it  to  that  state  agam,  whenever  God  sees  fit  to  put  them 
into  operation. 

2.  The  destruction  here  foretold  is  not  annihilation,  (a.)  The 
world  is  to  be  burnt  up  ;  but  combustion  is  not  a  destruction  of 
substance.  It  is  merely  a  change  of  state  or  condition.  (5.)  The 
destruction  of  the  world  by  water  and  its  destruction  by  fire  are 
analogous  events  ;  the  former  was  not  annihilation,  therefore  the 
second  is  not.  (c.)  The  destruction  spoken  of  is  elsewhere 
called  a  TraAiyyejecrta,  regeneration  (Matt.  xix.  28)  ;  an  a-n-oKa- 
Tao-rao-is,  a  restoration  (Acts  iii.  21)  ;  a  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption  (Rom.  viii.  21).  The  Apostle  teaches 
that  our  vile  bodies  are  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  the  glorious 
body  of  Christ,  and  that  a  similar  change  is  to  take  place  in  the 
world  we  inhabit.  There  are  to  be  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,  just  as  we  are  to  have  new  bodies.  Our  bodies  are  not  to 
be  amiihilated,  but  changed,  ((i.)  There  is  no  evidence,  either 
from  Scripture  or  experience,  that  any  substance  has  ever  been 
annihilated.  If  force  be  motion,  it  may  cease ;  but  cessation  of 
motion  is  not  annihilation,  and  the  common  idea  in  our  day,  among 
men  of  science,  is  that  no  force  is  ever  lost ;  it  is,  as  they  say, 
only  transformed.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  a  purely  gratuitous 
assumption  that  any  substance  has  ever  passed  out  of  existence. 
In  all  the  endless  and  complicated  changes  wliich  have  been  going 
on,  from  the  beginning,  in  our  earth  and  throughout  the  universe, 
nothmg,  so  far  as  known,  has  ever  ceased  to  be.  Of  course  He 
who  creates  can  destroy ;  the  qviestion,  however,  concerns  the 
purpose,  and  not  the  power  of  God  ;  and  He  has  never,  either  in 
his  word  or  in  his  works,  revealed  his  purpose  to  destroy  au}^- 
thing  He  has  once  created. 

Many  of  the  old  theologians,  especially  among  the  Luther; uis, 


§S]  THE   END    OF   THE   WORLD.  858 

understood  the  Bible  to  teach  the  absokite  annihilation  of  our 
world.  Schmid  ^  states  as  the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  the  world 
is  to  be  reduced  to  nothing  (in  Niclits  sich  auflosen).  He  quotes 
Baier,  Hollaz,  and  Quenstedt  in  support  of  this  view.  Quenstedt  '^ 
sa^^s  :  "  Forma  consummationis  hujus  non  in  nuda  qualitatum 
immutatione,  alteratione  sen  innovatione,  sed  in  ipsius  substan- 
tiae  mundi  totali  abolitione  et  in  nihilmn  reductione  consistit." 
Gerhard  ^  takes  the  same  view  :  "  Formam  consummationis  dici- 
mus  fore  non  nudam  qualitatum  alterationem,  sed  ipsius  substan- 
tive abolitionem,  adeoque  totalem  annihilationem,  ut  sic  terminus 
a  quo  consummationis  sive  destructionis  sit  '  esse,'  terminus  vero 
ad  quem  '  non  esse  '  sive  nihil."  He  admits,  however,  that  many 
of  the  fathers  and  Luther  himself  were  on  the  other  side.  He 
quotes  Irenaeus,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
Chrysostom,  as  in  favour  of  mutation  and  against  annihilation. 
Luther  was  wont  to  say  :  "  The  heavens  have  their  work-day 
clothes  on  ;  hereafter  they  will  have  on  their  Smiday  garments." 
Most  of  the  Reformed  theologians  generally  oj)pose  the  idea  of 
annihilation.  Turrettin  certainly  does.^  One  of  his  questions  is  : 
"  Qualis  futuris  sit  mundi  interitus  ?  An  per  ultimam  conflagra- 
tionem  sit  annihilandus,  an  instaurandus  et  renovandus  ?  "  He 
argues  throughout  in  favour  of  the  latter. 

3.  The  subject  of  the  change  which  is  to  take  place  at  the  last 
day  is  not  the  whole  material  universe,  but  our  earth  and  what 
pertains  to  it.  (a.)  It  is  true  the  Bible  says  :  "  Heaven  and 
earth  are  to  pass  away,"  and  by  heaven  and  earth  the  Scriptures 
often  mean  the  universe  ;  and  it  would  therefore  be  consistent 
with  the  language  of  Scripture  to  hold  that  the  whole  universe  is 
to  be  changed  at  the  last  day.  It  was  natural  that  this  inter- 
pretation should  be  put  upon  the  language  of  the  Bible  so  long  as 
our  earth  was  regarded  as  the  central  body  of  the  universe  and 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  as  subordinate  luminaries,  intended  simply 
for  the  benefit  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  world.  "  Wenn  der 
Tanz,"  says  Strauss,^  "  zu  Ende  ist,  blast  der  Wirth  die  Lichter 
aus."  The  case  however  assumes  a  different  aspect  when  we 
know  that  our  earth  and  even  our  solar  system  is  a  mere  speck  in 
the  immensity  of  God's  works.     It  is  one   of  the  unmistakable 

1  Die,  Dorjmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche,  von  Heinrich  Schmid,  Prof essor  de* 
Theologie  in  Erlangen;  Frankfort  and  Erlangen,  1853;  p.  506. 
'  Theoloffia  Didnctico-Polemica,  edit.  Leipzig,  1715. 
^  Loci  Theohf/ici,  xxx.  v  37;  Tiibingen,  1779,  vol.  xx.  pp.  51,  52. 
*  Institutio,  XX.  v.;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  iii.  p.  506. 
6  Dogmatik,  §  104;  Tubingen,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  665. 


854  PART  IV.     Cii.   IV.  — THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

evidences  of  the  di\ane  origin  of  tlae  Scriptures,  that  they  are 
written  on  such  a  high  level  that  all  the  mutations  of  human 
science  take  place  beneath  them  without  ever  coming  into  col- 
hsion  with  their  teachings.  They  could  be  read  by  those  who 
believed  that  the  smi  moves  romid  the  earth,  without  their  con- 
victions being  shocked  by  theu'  statements  ;  and  they  can  be  read 
by  us  who  know  that  the  earth  moves  round  the  sun,  with  the 
same  satisfaction  and  confidence.  Whether  the  heaven  and  earth 
which  are  to  pass  away  are  the  whole  material  universe,  or  only 
our  earth  and  its  atmospheric  heavens,  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
ture leaves  midecided.  Either  view  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  meaning  of  the  words  employed.  The  choice  between  the 
two  views  is  to  be  determined  by  other  considerations.  (6.)  The 
a  priori  probability  is  overwhelming  in  favour  of  the  more  lim- 
ited interpretation.  Anything  so  stupendous  as  the  passing  away 
of  the  whole  universe  as  the  last  act  of  the  drama  of  human  his- 
tory would  be  altogether  out  of  keeping,  (c.)  The  Bible  con- 
cerns man.  The  earth  was  cursed  for  his  transgression.  That 
curse  is  to  be  removed  when  man's  redemption  is  completed. 
The  KTto-ts  that  was  made  subject  to  vanity  for  man's  sin,  is  our 
earth ;  and  our  earth  is  the  ktio-is  which  is  to  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption.  The  change  to  be  effected  is  in  the 
dwelling-place  of  man.  (c?.)  According  to  the  Apostle  Peter,  it 
is  the  world  which  once  was  destroyed  by  water,  that  is  to  be 
consumed  by  fire.  But  although  the  predictions  of  Scriptm-e 
concern  only  our  earth,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  material  uni- 
verse is  to  last  forever.  As  it  is  not  from  eternity,  it  probably 
will  not  last  forever.  It  may  be  only  one  of  the  grand  exhibi- 
tions of  the  wonderful  working  of  God  in  the  field  of  infinite 
space,  and  in  the  course  of  unending  ages. 

4.  The  result  of  this  change  is  said  to  be  the  introduction  of 
a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth.  This  is  set  forth  not  only  in  the 
use  of  these  terms,  but  in  calling  the  predicted  change  "  a  regener- 
ation," "  a  restoration,"  a  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption and  an  introduction  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  Son 
of  God.  This  earth,  according  to  the  common  opinion,  that  is, 
this  renovated  earth,  is  to  be  the  final  seat  of  Christ's  kingdom. 
This  is  the  new  heavens  ;  this  is  the  New  Jerusalem,  the  INIount 
Zion  in  which  are  to  be  gathered  the  general  assembly  and  church 
of  the  first-born,  which  are  Avritten  in  heaven  ;  the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect ;  this  is  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  ;  the  city  of 
the  living  God  ;  the  kingdom  prepared  for  his  people  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world. 


§4.]  THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN.  855 

6.  It  is  of  course,  in  itself,  no  matter  of  interest  what  por- 
tion of  space  these  new  heavens  and  new  earth  are  to  occupy,  or 
of  what  materials  they  are  to  be  formed.  As  the  resurrection 
bodies  of  believers  are  to  be  human  bodies  they  must  have  a  local 
habitation,  although  it  be  one  not  made  with  hands  eternal  in  the 
heavens.  All  we  know  about  it  is  that  it  will  be  glorious,  and 
adapted  to  the  spiritual  bodies  which  those  in  Christ  are  to  re- 
ceive when  He  comes  the  second  time  unto  salvation. 

§  4.    The  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

In  the  account  given  of  the  final  judgment  in  Matthew  xxv.  31- 
46,  we  are  told  that  the  King  shall  "•  say  to  those  on  his  right 
hand.  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  pre 
pared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

1.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  was  predicted  that  God  would  set 
up  a  kingdom,  which  was  to  be  universal  and  everlasting. 

2.  Of  this  kingdom  the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  head.  He  is 
everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament  set  forth  as  a  king.  (See 
Gen.  xlis.  10 ;  Num.  xxiv.  17  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  16  ;  Is.  ix.  6,  7  , 
xi. ;  lii. ;  liii.  ;  Mich.  iv.  ;  and  Psalms  ii.  ;  xlv.  ;  Ixxii.  ;  and  ex.) 

3.  It  is  called,  for  obvious  reasons,  in  the  Scriptures,  mdiffer- 
ently,  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  the  kingdom 
of  the  Son  of  Man  (Matt.  xiii.  41)  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

4.  It  is  described  in  the  prophets  in  the  most  glowing  terms, 
in  figures  borrowed  partly  from  the  paradisiacal  state  of  man, 
and  partly  from  the  state  of  the  theocracy  during  the  reign  of 
Solomon. 

5.  This  kingdom  belongs  to  Christ,  not  as  the  Logos,  but  as 
the  Son  of  Man,  the  Theanthropos  ;  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

6.  Its  twofold  foundation,  as  presented  in  the  Bible,  is  the  pos- 
session on  the  part  of  Christ  of  all  divine  attributes,  and  his  work 
of  redemption.  (Heb.  i.  3 ;  Phil.  ii.  6-11.)  It  is  because  He 
being  equal  with  God,  "  humbled  Himself,  and  became  obedient 
unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,"  that  "  God  also  hath 
highly  exalted  Him,  and  given  Him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name  :  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth ; 
and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord, 
to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  All  power  in  heaven  and 
earth  has  been  given  into  his  hands  :  and  all  things  rh.  Traira,  the 
universe,  put  under  his  feet.  Even  the  angels  are  his  ministering 
spirits,  sent  by  Him  to  minister  to  those  who  shall  be  heirs  oi 
salvation. 


856  PART  IV.     Ch.  IV.— the   second   ADVENT. 

7.  Tliis  messianic  or  mediatorial  kingdom  of  Christ,  being  thus 
comprehensive,  is  presented  in  different  aspects  in  the  Word  of  God 
Viewed  as  extending  over  all  creatures,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  power, 
which,  according  to  1  Corinthians  xv.  24,  He  shall  deliver  up  to 
God  even  the  Father,  when  his  mediatorial  work  is  accomplished. 
Viewed  in  relation  to  his  own  people  on  earth  it  is  the  kingdom  of 
grace.  They  all  recognize  Him  as  their  absolute  proprietor  and 
sovereign.  They  all  confide  in  his  protection,  and  devote  them- 
selves to  his  service.  He  rules  in  them  and  reigns  over  them, 
and  subdues  all  their  and  his  enemies.  Viewed  in  relation  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  redeemed,  when  the  work  of  redemption  is 
consummated,  it  is  the  kingdom  of  glory,  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  words.  In  this  view  his  kingdom  is 
everlasting.  His  headship  over  his  people  is  to  continue  forever, 
and  his  dominion  over  those  whom  He  has  purchased  with  his 
blood  shall  never  end. 

8.  As  this  kingdom  is  thus  manifold,  so  also  it  is,  in  some  of 
its  aspects,  progressive.  It  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  passing 
through  different  stages.  In  prophecy  it  is  spoken  of  as  a  stone 
cut  out  without  hands,  which  became  a  great  mountain  and  filled 
the  whole  earth.  In  Daniel  vii.  14,  it  is  said  of  the  Messiah  that 
to  Him  "  there  was  given  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that 
all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve  Him."  So,  too,  in 
Psalm  ii.  8,  it  is  written  of  Him,  "  Ask  of  me,  and  I  shall  give 
thee  the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth  for  thy  possession ; "  in  Psalm  Ixxii.  11,  "  All  nations 
shall  serve  Him  ;  "  verse  17,  "  All  nations  shall  call  Him  blessed ; " 
in  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  9,  "  All  nations  whom  thou  hast  made  shall  come 
and  worship  before  thee,  O  Lord  ;  and  shall  glorify  thy  name  ;  "  in 
Isaiah  xlix.  6,  "  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  hght  to  the  Gentiles, 
that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto  the  end  of  the  earth ; "'  in 
Habakkuk  ii.  14,  "  The  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  the  LoRD,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea; "  and  in 
Malachi  i.  11,  "  From  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto  the  going 
down  of  the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great  among  the  Gentiles." 
The  Scriptures  abound  with  passages  of  similar  import.  It  is 
not  only  asserted  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  to  attain  this 
universal  extension  by  slow  degrees,  but  its  gradual  progress  is 
illustrated  in  various  ways.  Our  Lord  compares  his  kingdom  to 
a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  which  is  indeed  the  least  of  all  seeds ; 
but  when  it  is  grown  it  is  the  greatest  among  herbs ;  and  to 
leaven  which  a  woman  took,  and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal, 
till  the  whole  was  leavened. 


§4.]  THE   KINGDOM    OF   HEAVEN.  857 

9.  Although  God  has  always  had  a  kingdom  upon  earth,  yet 
the  kingdom  of  which  the  prophets  speak  began  in  its  messianic 
form  when  the  Son  of  God  came  in  the  flesh.  John  the  Baptist, 
the  forerunner  of  Christ,  came  preaching  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  at  hand.  Our  Lord  HimseK,  it  is  said,  went  from  village  to 
village,  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God.  (Luke  iv.  43 ;  viii.  1.) 
When  asked  by  Pilate  whether  He  was  a  king,  he  "  answered, 
Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for 
this  cause  came  I  into  the  world."  (John  xviii.  37).  The  Apos- 
tles wherever  they  went  ""  testified  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Acts 
xxviii.  23.)  Their  business  was  to  call  upon  men  to  receive  the 
Lord  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  anointed  and  predicted  Messiah  or 
king  of  his  people,  and  to  worship,  love,  trust  and  obey  Him  as 
such.  They  were,  therefore,  accused  of  acting  contrary  to  "  the 
decrees  of  Csesar,  saying  that  there  is  another  king,  one  Jesus." 
(Acts  xvii.  7.)  Men  are  exhorted  to  seek  first  the  kingdom  of 
God,  as  a  present  good.  It  is  compared  to  a  pearl  or  treasure,  for 
which  it  were  wise  for  a  man  to  sacrifice  everything.  Every  be- 
Hever  receives  Christ  as  his  king.  Those  who  receive  Him  in  sin- 
cerity constitute  his  kingdom,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  loyal 
subjects  of  an  earthly  sovereign  constitute  his  kingdom.  Those 
who  profess  allegiance  to  Christ  as  king  constitute  his  visible 
kingdom  upon  earth.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  opposed 
to  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  than  that  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  is  yet  future  and  is  not  to  be  inaugurated  until  his 
second  coming.  This  is  to  confound  its  consummation  with  its 
commencement. 

10.  As  to  the  nature  of  this  kingdom,  our  Lord  Himself  teaches 
us  that  it  is  not  of  this  world.  It  is  not  analogous  to  the  king- 
doms which  exist  among  men.  It  is  not  a  kingdom  of  earthly 
splendour,  wealth,  or  power.  It  does  not  concern  the  civil  or 
political  affairs  of  men,  except  in  their  moral  relations.  Its 
rewards  and  enjoyments  are  not  the  good  things  of  this  world. 
It  is  said  to  consist  in  "  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (Rom.  xiv.  17.)  Christ  told  his  hearers,  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  The  condition  of  admission 
into  that  kingdom  is  regeneration  (John  iii.  5),  conversion  (Matt, 
xviii.  3),  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  for  the  unrighteous  shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  nor  thieves,  nor  drunkards,  nor 
revilers,  nor  extortioners  (1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10 ;  Gal.  v.  21 ;  Eph. 
V.  5). 

11.  This  kingdom,  in  the  interval  between  the  fii'st  and  second 


858  PART  IV.     Ch.   IV.  — the   SECO^^D   ADVENT. 

advents  of  Christ,  is  said  to  be  like  a  field  in  which  the  wheat 
and  tares  are  to  grow  together  until  the  harvest,  which  is  the 
end  of  the  world.  Then  "  the  Son  of  Man  sliall  send  forth  his 
angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that 
offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity  ;  and  shall  cast  them  into  a 
furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 
Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  Father."  (Matt.  xiii.  41-43.)  Experience  concurs  with 
Scripture  in  teaching  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  passes  through 
many  vicissitudes  ;  that  it  has  its  times  of  depression  and  its  sea- 
sons of  exaltation  and  prosperity.  About  this  in  the  past,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  Prophecy  sheds  a  sufficiently  clear  light  on 
the  future  to  teach  us,  not  only  that  this  alternation  is  to  con- 
tinue to  the  end,  but,  more  definitely,  that  before  the  second 
coming  of  Christ  there  is  to  be  a  time  of  great  and  long  continued 
prosperity,  to  be  followed  by  a  season  of  decay  and  of  suffering, 
so  that  when  the  Son  of  Man  comes  he  shall  hardly  find  faith  on 
the  earth.  It  appeal's  from  passages  already  quoted  that  all 
nations  are  to  be  converted  ;  that  the  Jews  are  to  be  brought  in 
and  reingrafted  into  their  own  olive-tree  ;  and  that  their  restora- 
tion is  to  be  the  occasion  and  the  cause  of  a  change  from  death 
unto  life ;  that  is,  analogous  to  the  change  of  a  body  mouldering 
in  the  grave  to  one  instinct  with  joyous  activity  and  power.  Of 
this  period  the  ancient  prophets  speak  in  terms  adapted  to  raise 
the  hopes  of  the  Church  to  the  highest  pitch.  It  is  true  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  separate,  in  their  descriptions,  what  reefers  to  "  this  latter 
day  of  glory  ' '  from  what  relates  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  as 
consummated  in  heaven.  So  also  it  was  difiicult  for  the  ancient 
people  of  God  to  separate  what,  in  the  declarations  of  their 
prophets,  referred  to  the  redemption  of  the  people  from  Babylon 
from  Avhat  referred  to  the  greater  redemption  to  be  effected  by 
the  Messiah.  In  both  cases  enough  is  plain  to  satisfy  the  Church. 
There  was  a  redemption  from  Babylon,  and  there  was  a  redemp- 
tion by  Christ ;  and  in  like  manner,  it  is  hoped,  there  is  to  be  a 
period  of  millenial  glory  on  earth,  and  a  still  more  glorious  con- 
summation of  the  Church  in  heaven.  This  period  is  called  a 
millennium  because  in  Revelation  it  is  said  to  last  a  thousand 
years,  an  expression  which  is  perhaps  generally  understood  lit- 
erally. Some  however  think  it  means  a  protracted  season  of 
indefinite  duration,  as  when  it  is  said  that  one  day  is  witli  the 
Lord  as  a  thousand  years.  Others,  assuming  that  in  the  pro- 
phetic language  a  day  stands  for  a  year,  assume  that  tlie  so-called 


-] 


THE  KINGDOM    OF    HEAVEN.  859 

millennium  is  to  last  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  thousand  years. 
During  this  period,  be  it  longer  or  shorter,  the  Church  is  to 
enjoy  a  season  of  peace,  purity,  and  blessedness  such  as  it  has 
never  yet  experienced. 

The  principal  reason  for  assuming  that  the  prophets  predict  a 
glorious  state  of  the  Church  prior  to  the  second  advent,  is,  that 
they  represent  the  Church  as  being  thus  prosperous  and  glorious 
on  earth.     But  we    know  that    when   Christ   comes   again    the 
heavens  and  earth  are  to  pass  away,  and  that  no  more  place  will 
be  found  for  them.     The  seat  of  the  Church,  after  the  second 
coming,  is  not  to  be  the  earth,  but  a  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth.''  As  therefore  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  to  extend  over  all  the  earth;  that  all  nations   are  to 
serve  Him;  and  that  all  people  shall  call  Him  blessed;  it  is  to 
be  inferred  that  these  predictions  refer  to  a  state  of  things  which 
is  to   exist  before  the  second  coming  of   Christ.     This  state  is 
described  as  one  of  spiritual  prosperity  ;  God  will  pour  out  his 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  knowledge  shall  everywhere  abound  ;  wars 
shall  cease  to  the  ends  of  the.eai-th,  and  there  shall  be  nothing 
to  hurt  or  destroy  in  all  my  holy   mountain,   saith  the   Lord. 
This  does  not  imply  that  there  is  to  be  neither  sin  nor  sorrow  in 
the  world  during  this  long  period,  or  that  all  men  are  to  be  true 
Christians.     The  tares  are  to  grow  together  with  the  wheat  until 
the  harvest.     The  means  of  grace  will  still  be  needed ;  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  will  be  then  what  they  ever  have  been. 
It  is  only  a  higher  measure  of  the  good  which  the  Church  has 
experienced  in  the  past  that  we  are  taught  to  anticipate  in  the 
futiu-e.     This  however  is  not  the  end.     After  this  and  after  the 
great  apostasy  which  is  to  follow,  comes  the  consummation. 

The  Consummation. 

12.  When  Christ  comes  again  it  will  be  to  be  admired  in  all 
them  that  believe.  Those  who  are  then  alive  will  be  changed, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  ;  their  corruptible  shall  put  on  incor- 
ruption,  and  their  mortal  shall  put  on  immortality.  Those  who 
are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  Man  and 
come  forth  to  the  resurrection  of  life,  their  bodies  fashioned  like 
unto  the  glorious  body  of  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  changed,  both 
classes  shall  be  ever  Avith  the  Lord. 

The  place  of  the  final  abode  of  the  rigliteous  is  sometimes 
called  a  house;  as  when  the  Saviour  said:  "  Li  my  Father's 
house  are  many  mansions  "  (John  xiv.  2)  ;  sometimes  "  a  city 


S60  PART   IV.     Cii.   IV.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

wliicli  hath  foundations,  whose  bulkier  and  maker  is  God."  (Heb. 
xi.  10.)  Under  this  figure  it  is  called  the  new  or  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem, so  gorgeously  described  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  the 
Apocalypse.  Sometimes  it  is  spoken  of  as  "a  better  country,  that 
is  an  heavenly  "  (Heb.  xi.  16)  ;  a  country  through  which  flows 
the  river  of  the  water  of  life,  and  "  on  either  side  of  tlie  river 
was  there  the  tree  of  life,  which  bare  twelve  manner  of  fruits, 
and  yielded  her  fruit  every  month  :  and  the  leaves  of  the  tree 
were  for  the  healing  of  the  nations.  And  there  shall  be  no  more 
cui'se  :  but  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  in  it ; 
and  his  servants  shall  serve  Him  :  and  they  shall  see  his  face  ; 
and  his  name  shall  be  in  their  foreheads.  And  there  shall  be  no 
night  there :  and  they  need  no  candle,  neither  light  of  the  sun ; 
for  the  Lord  God  giveth  them  light :  and  they  shall  reign  for 
ever  and  ever."  (Rev.  xxii.  2-5.)  Sometimes  the  final  abode 
of  the  redeemed  is  called  a  "  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth." 
(2  Pet.  iii.  13.) 

As  to  the  blessedness  of  this  heavenly  state  we  know  that  it  is 
inconceivable  :  "  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have 
entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things  which  God  hath  pre- 
pared for  them  that  love  Him."    (1  Cor.  ii.  9.) 

"  We  know  not,  O  we  know  not, 
What  joys  await  us  there; 
What  radiancy  of  glorj', 
What  bliss  beyond  compare." 

We  know  however :  (1.)  That  this  incomprehensible  blessed- 
ness of  heaven  shall  arise  from  the  vision  of  God.  This  vision 
is  beatific.  It  beatifies.  It  transforms  the  soul  into  the  divine 
image  ;  transfusing  into  it  the  divine  life,  so  that  it  is  filled  mth 
the  fulness  of  God.  This  vision  of  God  is  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  Avhom  dwells  the  plenitude  of  the  divine  glory  bodily. 
God  is  seen  in  fashion  as  a  man ;  and  it  is  this  manifestation  of 
God  in  the  person  of  Christ  that  is  inconceivp,bly  and  intolerably 
ravishing.  Peter,  James,  and  John  became  as  dead  men  when 
they  saw  his  glory,  for  a  moment,  in  the  holy  mount.  (2.)  The 
blessedness  of  the  redeemed  will  flow  not  only  from  the  mani- 
festation of  the  glory,  but  also  of  the  love  of  God  ;  of  that  love, 
mysterious,  unchangeable,  and  infinite,  of  which  the  work  of 
redemption  is  the  fruit.  (3.)  Another  element  of  the  future 
happiness  of  the  sitints  is  the  indefinite  enlargement  of  all  their 
faculties.  (1.)  Another  is  their  entire  exemption  from  all  sin 
and  sorrow.     (5.)  Another   is  their   intercoui'se   and  fellowship 


§  5.]  THE   PRE-MILLENNIAL   THEORY.  861 

w  itli  the  liigli  intelligences  of  heaven  ;  with  patriarchs,  prophets, 
apostles,  martyrs,  and  all  the  redeemed.  (6.)  Another  is  con- 
stant increase  in  knowledge  and  in  the  useful  exercise  of  all  their 
powers.  (7.)  Another  is  the  secure  and  everlasting  possession 
of  all  possible  good.  And,  (8.)  Doubtless  the  outward  circum- 
stances of  their  bemg  will  be  such  as  to  minister  to  their  in- 
creasing blessedness. 

§  5.  The  Theory  of  the  Pre-millennial  Advent. 
The  common  doctrine  of  the  Cliurch  stated  above,  is  that  the 
conversion  of  the  Avorld,  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  and  the  de- 
struction of  Antichrist  are  to  precede  the  second  coming  of  Clii'ist, 
which  event  will  be  attended  by  the  general  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  the  final  judgment,  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  consum- 
mation of  the  Chiuxh.  In  opposition  to  tliis  view  the  doctrine  of 
a  pre-millennial  advent  of  Christ  has  been  extensively  held  from 
the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time.^  According  to  this 
view,  (1.)  The  nations  are  not  to  be  converted,  nor  are  the  Jews 
to  be  restored  to  their  standing  in  the  Church,  until  the  second 
coming  of  Christ.  (2.)  His  advent  is  to  be  personal  and  glori- 
ous. (3.)  He  will  establish  Himself  in  Jerusalem  as  the  head  of 
a  visible,  external  kingdom.  (4.)  When  He  comes,  the  martyrs, 
as  some  say,  or,  as  others  believe,  all  who  sleep  in  Jesus,  shall  be 
raised  from  the  dead  and  associated  with  Him  in  this  earthly 
kingdom.     (5.)  The  Jews  are  to  be  converted,  restored  to  their 

1  There  recentl}'  appeared  in  the  Presbyterian,  a  series  of  articles  signed  "  Twisse," 
understood  to  be  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  DufHeld  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey,  de- 
signed to  sustain  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-millennial  advent  of  Christ,  and  especially  to 
disprove  "  the  doctrine  of  a  millennial  era  of  universal  righteousness  and  peace  on  earth 
before  "  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  arguments  summarih'  stated  by  the  writer  are 
the  following:  "(1.)  Were  the  doctrine  true,  it  would  undoubtedly  be  prominent  In  the 
New  Testament,  and  especially  in  the  Apostolical  Epistles.  The  fact  is,  it  is  not  only  not 
prominent,  but,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  do  not  pretend 
to  find  in  the  Epistles  the  slightest  allusion  to  it.  (2.)  The  uniform  and  abundant  teaching 
of  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  condition  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world  during  the 
present  dispensation  —  that  is,  until  the  advent  —  forbid  the  expectation  of  such  a  millen- 
nium. (3.)  The  advent  itself,  not  the  millennium,  is  prominently  presented  in  the  New 
Testament  as  '  the  blessed  hope  '  of  the  Church,  and  is  uniformly  referred  to  as  an  event 
near  at  hand,  ever  imminent,  to  be  'looked  for'  with  longing  expectation.  (4.)  The 
Saviour's  repeated  command  to  '  watch  '  for  his  coming,  because  we  '  know  not  the  hour,' 
is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  millennium  intervening.  (5.)  The  New  Testament  teaches 
repeatedly  and  unequivocally  that  the  advent  and  the  manifestation  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom are  to  be  synchronous  events.  (6.)  The  Apostolic  Church,  under  the  instruction  of 
those  holy  men  who  spoke  and  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  millen- 
narian.  (7.)  The  Church,  for  two  centuries  immediately  succeeding  the  Ajiostles,  was 
millennarian.  (8.)  The  doctrine  of  a  millennium  before  the  advent  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
standanls  nf  any  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation;  by  several  it  is  expressly  repudiated. 
It  is  a  modern  novelty,  .•suggested  but  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  by  AVhitby,  and 
avowedly  as  'a  new  hypothesis.'  " 


8fi2  PART  IV.     Ca.   IV.  — THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

own  land,  invested  vnth.  special  honours  and  prerogatives,  and 
made  the  instruments  of  the  conversion  of  the  world.  (6.)  This 
kingdom  is  to  be  one  of  great  splendour,  prosperity,  and  blessed- 
ness, and  is  to  •  continue  a  thousand  years ;  which,  however,  as 
stated  above,  is  understood  in  different  senses.  (7.)  After  the 
expiration  of  the  millennium,  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  final  consummation  of  the  Church 
are  to  occur.  Such  are  the  general  features  of  the  scheme  which, 
with  many  modifications  as  to  details,  is  known  as  the  pre-millen- 
nial  advent  theory. 

The  leading  objections  to  this  doctrine  have  been  already  pre- 
sented in  the  discussions  of  the  several  topics  included  under  the 
general  head  of  eschatology.  They  may  be  summarily  stated  as 
follows :  — 

1.  It  is  a  Jewish  doctrine.  The  prmciples  adopted  by  its 
advocates  in  the  interpretation  of  pi'ophecy,  are  the  same  as 
those  adopted  by  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Clirist ;  and  they 
have  led  substantially  to  the  same  conclusions.  The  Jews  ex- 
pected that  when  the  Messiah  came  He  would  establish  a  glorious 
earthly  kingdom  at  Jerusalem ;  that  those  who  had  died  in  the 
faith  should  be  raised  from  the  dead  to  share  in  the  blessings  of 
the  Messiah's  reign ;  that  all  nations  and  peoples  on  the  face  of 
the  whole  earth  should  be  subject  to  them;  and  that  any  nation 
that  did  not  serve  them  should  be  destroyed.  All  the  riches  and 
honours  of  the  world  were  to  be  at  their  disposal.  The  event 
disappointed  these  expectations ;  and  the  principles  of  j^rophetic 
interpretation  on  which  those  expectations  were  founded  were 
proved  to  be  incorrect. 

2.  This  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures,  inasmuch  as 
it  teaches  that  believers  only  are  to  rise  from  the  dead  when 
Christ  comes ;  whereas  the  Bible  declares  that  when  He  appears 
all  who  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth ;  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ; 
and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation. 

3.  The  Bible  teaches  that  when  Christ  comes  all  nations  shall 
appear  at  his  bar  for  judgment.  This  theory  teaches  that  the 
final  judgment  will  not  occur  until  after  the  millennium.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  judgment  is  to  commence  at  the  second  advent 
and  continue  daring  the  reign  of  a  thousand  years.  But  the 
general  judgment  cannot  occur  before  the  general  i-esurrection, 
and  as  the  general  resurrection,  according  to  this  theory,  is  not  to 
take  place  until  after  the  millennium,  sd  neither  can  tlie  general 
judgment. 


,^  5]  THE   PRE-MILLENNIAL   THEORY.  863 

4.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  when  Christ  comes  the  second 
time  without  sin  unto  salvation,  then  the  Church  shall  enter  on  its 
everlasting  state  of  exaltation  and  glory.  Those  in  Christ  who 
have  departed  this  life  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead  and  be 
clothed  with  their  spiritual  bodies,  and  those  who  are  alive  shall 
be  changed  in  a  moment,  and  thus  they  shall  be  ever  with  the 
Lord.  According  to  this  theory,  instead  of  heaven  awaiting  the 
risen  saints,  they  are  to  be  introduced  into  a  mere  worldly 
kingdom.  1 

5.  It  is  inconsistent  with  all  the  representations  given  of  the 
glory  and  blessedness  of  departed  saints,  to  assume  that  at  the 
resurrection  they  are  to  be  brought  down  to  a  lower  state  of  ex- 
istence, degraded  from  heaven  to  earth.  The  millennium  may  be 
a  great  advance  on  the  present  state  of  the  Church  ;  but,  exalt  it 
as  you  may,  it  is  far  below  heaven.  This  argument  bears,  at 
least,  against  the  patristic  doctrine  of  the  millennium. 

6.  The  view  presented  by  pre-millennarians  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  on  earth  is,  in  many  respects,  inconsistent  with  the  Scrip- 
tui'al  account  of  its  nature,  (a.)  It  is  to  be  a  worldly  kingdom. 
(6.)  Its  blessedness  is  to  consist  largely  in  worldly  prosperity. 
Although  the  modern  advocates  of  the  doctrine  have  eliminated 
the  grosser  elements  included  in  the  theory  of  many  of  the 
fathers  on  this  subject,  nevertheless  the  essential  earthly  character 
of  the  kingdom  remains.  Men  are  not  to  be  like  the  angels. 
Births  and  deaths  are  to  go  on,  not  only  during  the  millennium, 
but  without  end.  Not  that  the  glorified  believers  who  have  been 
raised  from  the  dead  are  to  marry  and  be  given  in  marriage,  but 
the  race  of  men  is  to  continue  indefinitely  to  increase  in  the 
future  as  it  has  increased  in  the  past.'-^     ((?.)  The  Bible  teaches 

1  It  is  true  that  pre-millennialists  differ  very  mucli  on  this  point.  The  common  opiniou  in 
the  early  Church  was  that  the  risen  saints  are  to  live  and  reign  a  thousand  years  with  Christ 
on  eartli  ;  but  some  say  that  the  glorified  believers  are  to  be  in  heaven  ;  others,  that  they  are 
to  appear  from  time  to  time  on  earth,  as  Christ  did,  during  the  forty  days  which  intervened 
between  his  resurrection  and  ascension  ;  and  others  appear  to  teach  that  glorilied  saints  are 
to  rule  over  unglorified  humanity  without  being  revealed  to  those  over  whom  they  reign. 

-  See  passages  cited  from  distinguished  millennarians  on  this  point  in  Rev.  David  Brown's 
Christ's  SeC''?id  Cominr/,  pp.  167-173.  Mr.  David  N.  Lord  devotes,  to  this  subject  two 
chapters  of  his  book  on  The  Cominri  and  Reign  of  Christ.  New  York,  18.58.  He  says  (p. 
1-51),  that  the  Scriptures  teach,  that  the  earth  is  "  to  continue  forever,  and  that  mankind  are 
forever  to  occupy  it,  and  multiply  in  an  endless  succession  of  generations;  and  that  it  is  to 
be  the  scene  of  Christ's  everlasting  kingdom  and  reign."  He  argues  this  from  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Noah ;  fi-om  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  that  his  seed  should  forever 
possess  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  from  the  promise  made  to  David  that  his  seed  should  sit 
on  his  throne  and  reign  forever.  This  perpetuity  of  the  human  race  on  the  earth  and  in 
the  flesh,  he  considers  one  of  the  most  clearly  revealed  purposes  of  God  concerning  the 
family  of  man.  Instead  of  the  number  of  the  redeemed  being  nearly  made  up,  he  holds 
that  they  are  to  go  on  multiplying  through  all  cternit}-. 


8G4  PART   IV.     Ch.   IV.  — the   second   ADVENT. 

that  the  distinction  between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  is  abol- 
ished in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  This  tlieory  teaches  that  after 
the  second  advent  that  distinction  is  to  continue  and  to  be  made 
greater  than  ever  before.  The  temple  at  Jerusalem  is  to  be  re- 
built ;  the  sacrifices  restored ;  and  all  the  details  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  as  described  in  Ezekiel,  again  introduced,  (c?.)  The  Bible 
teaches  that  after  the  end  of  the  world,  as  described  in  2  Peter 
iii.  10  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  there  are  to  be  a  new  heavens  and 
a  new  earth.  This  theory  teaches  the  "  earth's  eternal  per- 
petuity." '  "  The  dissolving  fires  of  which  Peter  speaks,"  we  are 
told,  "  are  for  '  the  perdition  of  ungodly  men  ; '  and  not  for  the 

utter  depopulation  and  destruction  of  the  whole  world 

Men  and  nations  will  survive  them  and  still  continue  to  live  in 
the  flesh."  2 

7.  This  theory  disparages  the  Gospel.  "  The  more  common 
opinion,"  says  Dr.  McNeile,  "  is,  that  this  is  the  final  dispensa- 
tion, and  that  by  a  more  copious  outpoiu'ing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  it 
will  magnify  itself,  and  swell  into  the  universal  blessedness  pre- 
dicted by  the  prophets,  carrying  with  it  Jews  and  Gentiles,  even 
the  whole  world,  in  one  glorious  flock  under  one  shepherd,  Jesus 
Christ  the  Lord.  This  is  reiterated  from  pulpit,  press,  and  plat- 
form. It  is  the  usual  climax  of  missionary  exhortation,  or  rather 
missionary  prophecy."  ^  "  The  universal  prevalence  of  religion 
hereafter  to  be  enjoyed,"  says  Mr.  Brooks,  "  is  not  to  be  effected 
by  any  increased  impetus  given  by  the  present  means  of  evangel- 
izmg  the  nations,  but  by  a  stupendous  display  of  Divine  wrath 
upon  all  the  apostate  and  ungodly."  *  Wrath,  however,  never 
converted  a  single  soul,  and  never  will.  "  The  Scriptures,"  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Tyso,  "  do  state  the  design  of  the  Gospel,  and 
what  it  is  to  effect ;  but  they  never  say  it  is  to  convert  the  world. 
Its  powers  have  Ijeen  tried  for  eighteen  hundi'ed  years,  and  it  has 
never  yet  truly  converted  one  nation,  one  city,  one  town,  nor  even 
a  single  village."  ^  In  the  work  of  Rev.  David  Brown  on  the 
Second  Advent,^  abundant  evidence  is  advanced  from  the  writ- 
ings of  j\Ir.  Brooks,  Dr.  McNeile,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bickersteth, 
to  show  that  those  gentlemen  teach  that  the  Scriptures  "  are  to  bo 
superseded  "  in  the  millennium.     Other  means,  probably,  as  they 

1  The  Lftfl  Times  and  the  Great  Consiiwmation.    By  Joseph  A.  Seiss,  D.D.    Philadelphu 
jind  London,  1866.    p.  73.     On  p.  75,  the  author  saj-s,  "  The  earth  sliall  not  pass  away." 

2  Seis.s,  ut  supra,  p.  211. 

8  Lertwri's  on  the  Prophecies  Relative  to  the  Jewish  N'afia').,  1st.  edit.,  18'50,  p.  72. 

*  Elements  of  Prophetic  Interpretaiion,  pp.  227,  228. 

6  Defence  of  the,Personal  lieiijn  of  Christ.     1841.     pp.  11,42.  *'  pp.  311-315. 


§  5.]  THE   PRE-MILLENNIAL   THEORY.  86"j 

say,  other  reveUitions  are  to  be  made  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
Any  theory  which  thus  disparages  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God 
must  be  false.  Christ's  commission  to  his  Church  was  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature  under  heaven ;  Paul  says,  the  Gos- 
pel is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  ;  that,  though  a  stumbling- 
block  to  the  Jew  and  foolishness  to  the  Greek,  it  is  the  wisdom  of 
God  and  the  power  of  God ;  that  it  has  pleased  God  by  the  fool- 
ishness of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe ;  and  he  plainly 
teaches  (Rom.  x.  11-15)  that  there  is  no  other  means  of  salva- 
tion. Wrath,  judgments,  displays  of  visible  glory,  and  miracles 
are  not  designed  for  the  conversion  of  souls,  nor  are  they  adapted 
to  that  end. 

8.  Another  objection  to  the  pre-millennial  theory  is  the  want 
of  consistency  in  its  advocates  and  the  conflicting  conclusions  to 
which  they  come.  They  profess  to  adopt  the  principle  of  literal 
interpretation.  They  interpret  literally  the  prophecies  relating 
to  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land  ;  which  promise  to 
them  as  a  nation  dominion  over  all  the  other  nations  of  the  earth, 
the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  and  the  restoration  of  the  Temple- 
service,  the  greatest  worldly  prosperity,  and  even  the  everlasting 
perpetuity  of  their  nation  in  the  highest  state  of  blessedness  here 
on  earth  and  "in  the  flesh."  Yet  they  are  forced  to  abandon 
their  literalism  when  they  come  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
prophecies  which  predict  that  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to 
go  up  to  Jerusalem  every  month,  and  even  on  every  Sabbath. 
And  more  than  this,  they  go  to  the  extreme  of  figurative  or 
spiritual  interpretation  in  explaining  the  prophecies  which  refer 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Apostle  Peter  says  in  express 
terms :  "  The  heavens  shall  pass  away  vnth  a  great  noise,  and 
the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also  and  the 
works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up."  This  they  deny. 
They  say  that  it  is  only  certain  nations  who  are  to  be  destroyed  ; 
that  the  earth  is  not  to  be  depopulated  ;  that  the  final  conflagra- 
tion will  produce  less  change  or  injury  than  the  deluge  did.^ 

The  utmost  confusion  also  prevails  in  the  views  of  pre-millenna- 

rians  as  to  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.     Accordmg  to 

one  view  Christ  and  his  risen  and  glorified  saints  are  to  dwell 

visibly  on  the  earth  and  reign  for  a  thousand  years  ;  according  to 

another,  the  risen  saints  are  to  be  in  heaven,  and  not  on  earth 

any  more  than  the  angels  now  are  ;  nevertheless  the  subjects  of 

the  first  resurrection,  although  dwelling  in  heaven,  are  to  govern 

1  The  Last  Times,  J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D.,  p.  74. 
VOL.  Ill  55 


866  PART   iV.     Cii.    IV.  — THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

the  earth  ;  according'  to  another  it  is  the  converted  Jemsh  nation 
restored  to  their  own  land,  who  are  to  be  the  governors  of  the 
world  ;  according  to  another,  the  Bible  divides  men  into  three 
classes :  the  Gentiles,  the  Jews,  and  the  Church  of  God.  The 
prophecies  relating  to  the  millennium  are  miderstood  to  refer  to 
the  relative  condition  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  this  world,  and 
not  to  the  risen  and  glorified  believers.  Another  view  seems  to 
be,  that  this  earth,  changed  no  more  by  the  fires  of  the  last  day 
than  it  was  by  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  is  to  be  the  only  heaven 
of  the  redeemed.  Dr.  Gumming  and  Dr.  Seiss  say  they  wish  no 
better  heaven  than  this  earth  free  from  the  curse  and  from  sin. 
The  latter  says  :  ^  "  My  faith  is,  that  these  very  hills  and  valleys 
shall  yet  be  made  glad  with  the  songs  of  a  finished  redemption, 
and  this  earth  yet  become  the  bright,  blessed,  and  everlasting 
homestead  of  men  made  glorious  and  immortal  in  body  and  in 
soul."  Still  another  view  is  that  there  are  two  heavens,  one  here 
and  one  above  ;  two  Jerusalems,  both  to  continue  forever,  the 
one  on  earth  and  the  other  in  heaven  ;  the  one  made  with  hands, 
the  other  without  hands  ;  both  glorious  and  blessed,  but  the 
earthly  far  inferior  to  the  heavenly ;  they  are  like  concentric  cir- 
cles, one  within  the  other  ;  both  endless.  Men  Avill  continue  for- 
ever, on  earth,  living  and  dying  ;  happy  but  not  perfect,  needing 
regeneration  and  sanctification  ;  and,  when  they  die,  will  be  trans- 
lated to  the  kingdom  which  is  above. 

It  seems  therefore  that  the  torch  of  the  literalist  is  an  "  ignis 
fatuus,"  leading  those  who  follow  it,  they  know  not  whither.  Is 
it  not  better  to  abide  by  the  plain  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Bible, 
rather  than  to  trust  to  the  uncertain  expositions  of  unfulfilled 
prophecies?  What  almost  all  Clu'istians  believe  is:  (1.)  That 
all  nations  shall  be  converted  unto  God.  Jesus  shall  reign  from 
the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun.  (2.)  That  the  Jews  shall  be 
reingrafted  into  their  own  olive-tree  and  acknowledge  our  Lord 
to  be  their  God  and  Saviour.  (3.)  That  all  Antichristian  poAvers 
shall  be  destroyed.  (4.)  That  Christ  shall  come  again  in  person 
and  with  great  glory  ;  the  dead  shall  be  raised,  those  who  have 
done  ffood  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  those  who  have  done  evil 
mito  the  resurrection  of  damnation  ;  and,  (5.)  That  the  righteous 
clothed  in  their  glorified  bodies  shall  then  inherit  the  kingdom 
prepared  for  them  from  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  and  the 
wicked  be  consigned  to  their  final  doom. 

1  The.  Last  Times,  p.  72. 


g5.]  THE   PRE-MILLENNIAL   THEORY.  867 

Did  the  Apostles  expect  the  Second  Advent  in  their  Day  ? 
The  simple  facts  on  this  subject  are  :  (1.)  That  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  and  the  estabhshment  of  his  kingdom  was  the  great 
object  of  expectation  and  desire  for  the  people  of  God  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world.     It  was  the  great  subject  of  prophecy 
and  promise  under  the  old  dispensation.     The  ancient  saints  are 
described  (as  Christians  now  are)  as  those  who  were  constantly- 
hoping  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord.     (Eph.  ii.  12  ;  Acts  xxvi. 
6,  7.)     The  dying  thief  said  :  "  Lord,  remember  me,  when  thou 
comest  into  thy  kingdom."     The  last  question  put  to  our  Lord 
by  his  disciples  was  :  "  Lord  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again 
the  kingdom  to  Israel."     (2.)  As  the  Messiah  came  at  first  as  a 
man  of  sorrows,  to  make  Himself  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  He  promised 
to  come  a  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation,  to  raise  the 
dead  and  to  gather  all  his  people  into  his  everlasting  home.     His 
second  coming  therefore  was  to  Christians  what  his  first  commg 
was  to  the  Old  Testament  saints  ;  the  constant  object  of  expecta 
tion  and  desire.     (3.)  As  the  time  of  the  second  advent   was 
unrevealed  either  to  men  or  angels,  the  early  Christians  hoped  it 
might  occur  in  their  day.     The  Apostles  themselves  no  doubt  at 
first  cherished  that  expectation.     (4.)  To  the  Apostle  Paul,  how- 
ever, it  was  revealed  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  not  to  come 
until  a  great  apostasy  had  occurred.     (5.)  Nevertheless  as  the 
ApostoUc  Christians  did  not  know  how  long  that  apostasy  was  to 
continue,  their  constant  prayer  was,  O  Lord  come  quickly.     The 
Apostles  continued  to  hold  up  the  second  advent  as  an  impending 
event,  the  moral  impression   of  which  ought  to  be  to  raise  the 
affections  of  the  people  from  the  world  and  -fix  them  on  the  things 
unseen   and   eternal.     Those  who  urge  the  fact  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  speak  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  as  at  hand,  and 
exliort  believers  to  watch  and  pray  for  his  advent,  as  a  proof  that 
the  Apostles  believed  that  it  might  occm^  at  once,  that  no  events 
then  future  must  come  to  pass  before  Christ  came,  forget  that 
what  inspired  men  said  God  said.     If  God,  who  knew  that  Christ 
was  not  to  come  for  at  least  eighteen  centuries  after  his  ascension, 
could   say  to  his  people  :    "  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand." 
"  Watch  therefore,  for  ye  know  neither  the  day  nor  the  houi 
wherein  the  Son  of  Man  cometh,"  then  that  language  was  appro- 
priate even  on  the  assumption  that  those  who  used  it  knew  that 
the  second  advent  was  not  to  occur  for  thousands  of  years  ;  for  a 
thousand  years  are  with  God  as  one  day,  and  one  day  as  a  thousand 


868  PART  IV.     Ch.   IV.  — the    second   ADVENT. 

years.     The  Church  waited  four   thousand   years  for   the   first 
advent ;  we  may  be  content  to  wait  God's  time  for  the  second.^ 

§  6.    Future  Punishment. 

Our  I-/ord  in  his  account  of  the  final  judgment  says,  that  the 
wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment  ;  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal. 

The  suif  erings  of  the  finally  impenitent,  accordmg  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, arise :  (1.)  From  the  loss  of  all  earthly  good.  (2.)  From 
exclusion  from  the  presence  and  favour  of  God.  (3.)  From 
utter  reprobation,  or  the  final  withdrawal  from  them  of  the  Holy 
Spu'it.  (4.)  From  the  consequent  unrestrained  dominion  of  sm 
and  sinful  passions.  (5.)  From  the  operations  of  conscience. 
(6.)  From  despair.  (7.)  From  their  evil  associates.  (8.)  From 
their  external  circumstances ;  that  is,  future  suffering  is  not  ex- 
clusively the  natural  consequences  of  sin,  but  also  includes  posi- 
tive inflictions.     (9.)  From  their  perpetuity. 

There  seems  to  be  no  more  reason  for  supposing  that  the  fire 
spoken  of  in  Scriptm-e  is  to  be  literal  fire,  than  that  the  worm 
that  never  dies  is  literally  a  worm.  The  devil  and  his  angels 
who  are  to  suffer  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire,  and  whose  doom 
the  finally  impenitent  are  to  share,  have  no  material  bodies  to  be 
acted  upon  by  elemental  fire.  As  there  are  to  be  degrees  m 
the  glory  and  blessedness  of  heaven,  as  our  Lord  teaches  us  in 
the  parable  of  the  ten  talents,  so  there  will  be  differences  as  to 
degree  in  the  suffermgs  of  the  lost :  some  will  be  beaten  with  few 
stripes,  some  mth  many. 

The  Duration  of  Future  Punishment. 

On  this  subject  the  following  opinions  have  been  held :  — 
1.  It  is  assumed  that  the  design  of  pmiishment  is  reformation, 
and  that  it  is  effective  to  that  end.  The  time  will,  therefore, 
come  when  all  sinful  creatures,  whether  men  or  angels,  shall  be 
purged  from  all  corruption,  and  restored  to  the  image  and  favour 
of  God.     This  was  the  doctrine  of  Origen  in  the  early  Church. 

1  Millciinanans  are  not  consistent  in  urging  the  objection  considered  in  the  text,  as  some 
at  least  of  their  own  number  teach  that  important  events  yet  future  must  occur  before  the 
establishment  of  Christ's  kingdom.  For  example,  Rev.  John  Cox,  Jlinister  of  the  Gospel, 
Woolwich,  ill  his  T/iour/hts  on  (he  Coming  and  Kinrjdom  of  our  Lord  .Testis  Christ,  devotes 
the  third  chapter  of  that  work  to  prove  that  the  entire  destruction  of  the  Papacy,  of 
Mohammedanism,  and  of  the  tj'rannical  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  to  tlicir  own  land,  must  precede  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  See  The  LiternlL4,  vol.  v 
p.  26  ff.  The  Lileralist  is  a  collection,  in  five  octavo  volumes,  of  the  publications  of  tiu 
leading  English  pre-millennarians.    Published  by  Orrin  Rogers,  Philadelphia,  18-10  and  1  ^41 


§6.]  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT,  869 

Other  restorationists  rest  their  hope  of  the  ultmiate  salviition  of 
all  men,  not  on  the  purifying  effect  of  suffering,  but  on  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  death  of  Clu-ist.  If  He  died  for  all,  they  infer,  all  will 
be  saved. 

2.  Others  hold  that  future  punishment  is  only  hypothetically 
everlasting.  That  is,  the  ^vicked  will  suffer  forever  if  they  con- 
tinue to  sin  forever.  But,  if  the  Spirit  continues  to  strive  with 
men  in  the  world  to  come,  or,  as  others  believe,  if  plenary  ability 
belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  a  rational  creature,  then  we  may 
assume  that  some,  perhaps  many,  perhaps  all,  in  the  course  of 
ages,  will  repent  and  turn  mito  God  and  live. 

3.  Others  again  teach  that  the  sufferings  of  the  impenitent  are 
only  relatively  endless  ;  that  is,  it  "will  forever  be  true  that  their 
condition  will  be  inferior  to  what  it  would  have  been  had  they 
been  better  men. 

4.  Others  hold  that  the  life  promised  to  the  righteous  is  im- 
mortality, and  that  the  death  threatened  against  the  wicked  is  the 
extinction  of  life,  or,  the  cessation  of  conscious  existence.  The 
soul  will  die  in  the  future  world,  just  as  the  body  dies  here.  It 
ceases  to  act ;  it  ceases  to  feel ;  it  ceases  to  be.  This  death  of  the 
soul  is  called  eternal,  because  life  is  never  to  be  restored.  The 
punishment  of  the  wicked  is,  therefore,  in  a  sense,  everlasting. 
It  is  a  final  and  everlasting  forfeitm-e  of  all  good.  Thus  Cicero  ^ 
calls  death  "  sempiternum  malmn,"  and  Lucretius  ^  speaks  of  a 
"  mors  immortalis."  This  second  death  may  be  very  painful  and 
protracted.  The  finally  impenitent,  may,  and  doubtless  will, 
suffer  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  and  to  a  less  or  greater  de- 
gree, before  the  final  extinction  of  their  being.  And  thus  there 
shall  be  a  future  retribution,  answering  all  the  ends  of  justice.  ^ 

5.  The  common  doctrine  is,  that  the  conscious  existence  of  the 
soul  after  the  death  of  the  body  is  unending  ;  that  there  is  no 
repentance  or  reformation  in  the  future  world  ;  that  those  who 
depart  this  life  unreconciled  to  God,  remain  forever  in  this  state 
of  alienation,  and  therefore  are  forever  sinful  and  miserable.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  Christian  Church,  of  the  Greeks,  of 
the  Latins,  and  of  all  the  great  historical  Protestant  bodies. 

1  Tuscidnnarum  Dlsptitationjtm,  i.  xlii.  100;    Works,  edit.  Leipzig,  1850,  p.  1057,  b. 

2  See  Lucretius,  De  Rerum  Natura,  iii.  517-519,  edit.  London,  1712,  \i.  141. 

3  This  theory  is  advocated  with  confidence,  as  well  as  with  ability  and  learning,  bv  Henry 
Constable,  A.  M.,  Prebendarj'  of  Cork,  in  his  tract  on  Tlie  Diiralion  and  Nature  oj 
Future  Punishment,  Reprinted  from  the  Second  London  Edition,"  New  Haven,  Conn.,  1872, 
And  much  more  elaborately  in  Debt  and  Grace  as  related  *■>  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life, 
B3- C.  F.  Hudson.     Fifth  Edition.     Boston:  1859. 


870  PART   IV.     Ch.   IV.  — the    second  ADVENT. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  is  a  question  which  can  be  decided  only 
by  divine  revehition.  No  one  can  reasonably  presume  to  decide 
how  long  the  wicked  are  to  suffer  for  their  sins  upon  any  general 
principles  of  right  and  wrong.  The  conditions  of  the  problem 
are  not  within  our  grasp.  What  the  infinitely  wise  and  good 
God  may  see  fit  to  do  vnth.  his  creatures  ;  or  what  the  exigencies 
of  a  government  embracing  the  whole  universe  and  continuing 
throughout  eternal  ages,  may  demand,  it  is  not  for  such  worms  of 
the  dust  as  we  are,  to  determine.  If  we  believe  the  Bible  to  be 
the  Word  of  God,  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  ascertain  what  it  teaches 
on  this  subject,  and  humbly  submit. 

1.  It  is  an  almost  invincible  presumption  that  the  Bible  does 
teach  the  miending  punishment  of  the  finally,  impenitent,  that  all 
Christian  churches  have  so  understood  it.  There  is  no  other  way 
in  which  this  unanimity  of  judgment  can  be  accounted  for.  To 
refer  it  to  some  philosophical  speculation  which  had  gained  ascend- 
ancy in  the  Church,  such  as  the  dualism  of  good  and  evil  as  two 
coetemal  and  necessary  principles,  or  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the 
inherent  immortality  and  indestructible  nature  of  the  human  soul, 
would  be  to  assign  a  cause  altogether  madequate  to  the  effect. 
Much  less  can  this  general  consent  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground 
that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  congenial  to  the  human  mind,  and 
is  believed  for  its  o^vn  sake,  without  any  adequate  sujDport  from 
Scripture.  The  reverse  is  the  case.  It  is  a  doctrine  which  the 
natural  heart  revolts  from  and  struggles  against,  and  to  which  it 
submits  only  under  stress  of  authority.  The  Church  believes  the 
doctrine  because  it  must  believe  it,  or  renounce  faith  in  the  Bible 
and  give  up  all  the  hopes  founded  upon  its  promises.  There  is  no 
doctrine  m  suj)port  of  which  this  general  consent  can  be  pleaded, 
which  can  be  shown  not  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible.  The  doctrines 
of  the  Trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  sinfulness  of  men,  and  others  of  a  like  kind,  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  Scriptural  even  by  those  who  do  not  believe  them. 
The  argument  now  urged,  does  not  suppose  the  Church  to  be 
infallible  ;  nor  that  the  authority  of  the  Church  is  the  ground  of  - 
faith  ;  it  only  assumes  that  what  the  great  body  of  the  competent 
readers  of  a  plain  book  take  to  be  its  meaning,  must  be  its 
meaning. 

It  is  unreasonable  to  account  for  the  general  reception  of  the 
doctrme  in  question  on  the  ground  of  church  authority.  It  was 
universally  received  before  the  external  Clun'ch  arrogated  to  itseli 
the  right  to  dictate  to  the  people  of  God  what  they  must  believe 


§6]  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  871 

and  it  continued  to  be  received  when,  at  the  Reformation,  the 
autliority  of  the  Church  was  repudiated,  and  the  Scriptures  were 
declared  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Any 
man,  therefore,  assumes  a  fearful  responsibility  who  sets  himself 
in  opposition  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal. 

2.  It  is  admitted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
future  punishment  of  the  wicked  was  held  by  the  Jews  under  the 
old  dispensation,  and  at  the  time  of  Christ.  Neither  our  Lord 
nor  his  Apostles  ever  contradicted  that  doctrine.  They  reproved 
the  false  teachers  of  their  day  for  doctrinal  errors  on  many  points, 
but  the}^  never  corrected  their  faith  in  this  doctrine.  They  never 
teach  anything  inconsistent  with  it.  Their  recorded  instructions 
give  no  ground  for  a  belief  either  of  the  final  restoration  of  all 
rational  creatures  to  the  favour  of  God,  or  of  the  annihilation  of 
the  wicked.  The  passages  which  are  appealed  to  by  Universalista 
in  support  of  their  doctrine  admit  of  a  natural  and  simple  inter- 
pretation in  harmony  with  the  general  teaching  of  the  Bible  on 
this  subject.  For  example,  in  Ephesians  i.  10,  it  is  said  to  be  the 
purpose  of  God  to  bring  into  one  harmonious  whole  (or,  as  it  is 
expressed  in  Colossians  i.  20,  to  reconcile  unto  Himself)  all  things, 
i.  g.,  all,  who  are  in  heaven  and  who  are  on  earth.  The  question  is, 
who,  or  what  are  the  all,  who  are  to  be  reconciled  unto  God  ? 
This  question  must  be  answered  by  a  reference  to  the  nature  of 
the  thing  spoken  of,  and  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  It  cannot 
mean  absolutely  "  all  things,"  the  whole  universe,  including  sun, 
moon,  and  stars,  for  they  are  not  susceptible  of  reconciliation  to 
God.  For  the  same  reason  it  cannot  mean  all  sensitive  creatures, 
including  irrational  animals.  Nor  can  it  mean  all  rational  crea- 
tures, including  the  holy  angels  ;  for  they  do  not  need  reconcilia- 
tion. Nor  can  it  mean  all  fallen  rational  creatures,  for  it  is  ex- 
pressly taught,  Hebrews  ii.  16,  that  Christ  did  not  come  to  redeem 
fallen  angels.  Nor  can  it  mean  all  men,  for  the  Bible  teaches 
elsewhere  that  all  men  are  not  reconciled  to  God  ;  and  Scriptui-e 
cannot  contradict  Scripture ;  for  that  would  be  for  God  to  contra- 
dict Himself,  The  "  all "  intended  is  the  "  all  "  spoken  of  in  the 
context ;  the  whole  body  of  the  people  of  God  ;  all  the  objects 
of  redemption. 

Restorationists  appeal  also  to  Romans  v.  18 :  "  As  by  the 
offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation ; 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all 
men  mito  justification  of  life.''  This  is  made  to  mean,  that  as  all 
men  are  condemned  for  Adam's  offence,  so  all  men  are  justified 


872    PART  IV.  Ch.  IV. -the  second  advent. 

for  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  same  interpretation  is  put 
upon  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  22 :  "  As  in  Adam 
all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  In  both  these 
passages,  however,  the  "  all "  is  necessarily  limited  by  the  context. 
It  is  the  all  who  are  m  Adam,  that  die  ;  and  the  all  who  are  in 
Christ,  that  are  made  alive.  Restorationists  limit  the  word  to  all 
men,  or  to  all  fallen  creatures,  in  obedience  to  what  they  sup- 
pose to  be  the  analogy  of  Scripture  ;  and  this  is  all  that  is  done 
by  the  orthodox.  The  only  question  is,  What  do  the  Scriptures 
elsewhere  teach  ?  If  they  clearly  teach  that  all  men  and  fallen 
angels  are  to  be  saved,  then  these  passages  must  be  interpreted 
accordingly  ;  but  if  they  teach  that  all  men  are  not  saved,  then 
these  passages  cannot  be  understood  to  assert  the  contrary.  Of 
themselves  they  decide  nothing.  They  may  be  understood  in 
two  ways  ;  which  is  their  real  meaning  depends  on  what  is  taught 
elsewhere. 

The  same  remark  may  be  made  in  reference  to  other  passages 
which  Universalists  rely  upon.  Thus  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  25,  it 
is  said  that  Christ  "  must  reign,  until  He  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet."  This  may  mean  that  He  must  reign  until  all  sin 
and  misery  are  banished  from  the  universe  ;  but  this  is  not  its 
necessary  meaning,  for  Satan  may  be  subdued  without  being 
either  converted  or  anniliilated.  In  like  manner,  in  1  Timothy 
ii.  4,  it  is  said  God  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved ;  "  if  the  word 
will^  OeXei^  here  means  to  jyurpose,  then  the  passage  teaches  that  all 
men  shall  ultimately  be  certamly  saved.  But  if  the  word  means 
here  what  it  does  in  Matthew  xxvii.  43,  to  have  complacency  in, 
(ci  6iX€L  airov,)  then  it  teaches  only  what  the  Bible  everywhere 
else  teaches,  namely,  that  God  is  love  ;  that  He  delights  not  in 
the  death  of  sinners.  It  is  to  pervert,  and  to  misinterpret  the 
Word  of  God,  to  make  one  passage  contradict  another  simply 
because  the  language  used  admits  of  an  explanation  which  brings 
them  into  conflict.  The  question  is  not,  What  certain  words  may 
mean  ?  but.  What  were  they  intended  to  mean  as  used  in  certain 
connections  ? 

If  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did  not  teach  that  all  men  are  to  be 
saved,  neither  did  they  teach  that  the  wicked  are  to  be  annihilated. 
Mr.  Constable,  in  his  work  above  referred  to,  lays  down  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  language  of  the  Scriptures,  especially  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  "  usus  loquendi  " 
of  the  Greek  writers.  We  are  to  go  to  our  classical  dictionaries 
to  learn  the  meaning  of  the  words  they  use.     From  this  principle 


§6.J  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  878 

he  infers  that  as  the  word  C^^,  life^  in  ordinary  Greek,  means  con- 
tinued existence,  and  (9ai'aTos,  deaths  the  cessation  of  existence, 
such  is  their  meaning  in  the  Scriptures.  Therefore,  when  in  the 
Bible  eternal  life  is  promised  to  the  righteous,  immortality  is 
promised  to  them  ;  and  when  eternal  death  is  threatened  against 
the  wicked,  annihilation  is  declared  to  be  their  doom.  A  Greek- 
speaking  people,  he  says,  could  attach  no  other  meaning  to  such 
language.  In  like  manner  as  the  words  which  we  translate  to 
destroy,  or  cause  to  perish,  mean  to  blot  out  of  existence,  the 
inference  is  that  when  the  Avicked  are  said  to  be  destroyed,  or  to 
perish,  it  can  only  mean  that  they  are  annihilated. 

On  this  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  the  rule  of  interpretation  here  laid  down  is  obviously 
incorrect,  and  its  application  would  reduce  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  to  the  level  of  heathenism.  If  Greek  words  as  used  in 
Scripture  express  no  higher  ideas  than  on  the  lips  of  Pagans,  then 
we  can  have  only  the  thoughts  of  Pagans  in  the  Bible.  On  this 
prmciple,  how  could  the  Gospel  be  preached  to  heathen  ?  to  the 
Hindoos,  for  example,  if  they  were  forbidden  to  attach  to  the 
words  God,  sin,  repentance,  and  a  holy  life,  no  other  ideas  than 
those  suggested  by  the  corresponding  terms  of  their  own  lan- 
guage ?  The  Bible,  so  far  as  written  in  Greek,  must  be  under- 
stood as  Greek.  But  the  "  usus  loquendi  "  of  every  language 
varies  more  or  less  in  different  ages,  and  as  spoken  by  different 
tribes  and  nations.  Every  one  admits  that  Hellenistic  Greek  has 
a  usage  distinguishing  it  from  the  language  of  the  classics.  The 
language  of  the  Bible  must  explain  the  language  of  the  Bible. 
It  has  a  "  usus  loquendi  "  of  its  own.  It  is,  however,  not  true 
that  the  words  life  and  death  (C">*?  and  ^ai/aros)  are  in  any  lan- 
guage used  only  in  the  limited  sense  which  Mr.  Constable's  argu- 
ment would  assign  to  them.  When  the  poet  said,  "  dum  vivimus 
vivamus,"  he  surely  did  not  mean  to  say,  '  while  we  continue  to 
exist,  let  us  continue  to  exist.'  The  Scriptures  written  in  the 
language  of  men  use  words  as  men  are  accustomed  to  use  them, 
literally  or  figuratively,  and  in  senses  suited  to  the  nature  of  the 
subjects  to  which  they  are  appUed.  The  word  life  means  one 
thing  when  used  of  plants,  another  when  used  of  animals,  and 
another  when  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  soul  of  man.  The 
death  of  a  plant  is  one  thing,  the  death  of  an  immortal  soul  is 
something  entirely  different.  That  the  words  life  and  death  are 
not  confined  to  the  limited  sense  in  which  anniliilationists  would 
take  them,  hardly  needs  to  be  proved.     The  Scriptures  every- 


874  PART  IV.     Cu.  IV.  — THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

where  recognize  the  distinction,  in  reference  to  men,  between 
animal,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  life.  A  man  may  have  the  two 
former  and  be  destitute  of  the  latter.  God  quickens  those  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins  ;  that  is,  he  imparts  spiritual  Hfe  to  those 
who  are  in  the  full  vigour  of  their  animal  and  intellectual  being. 
Therefore  we  are  told  that  the  favour  of  God  is  life  ;  that  to 
know  God  is  eternal  life  ;  that  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  ; 
and  that  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.  The  Apostle  tells  the 
Colossians  :  "  Ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in 
God."  He  says  to  the  Galatians  :  "  I  live  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me."  Those  who  "  live  in  pleasure  "  are  said  to  be 
"dead  while  they  hve."  No  one  beUeves  that  the  word  life  in 
such  Scriptural  phrases  as  "  the  bread  of  life,"  "  the  water  of 
life,"  "  the  tree  of  life,"  "  the  crown  of  life,"  means  only  con- 
tinued existence.  The  word,  when  used  of  the  soul  of  man, 
means  not  only  conscious  being,  but  a  normal  state  of  being  in 
the  likeness,  fellowship,  and  enjoyment  of  God.  And  in  like 
mamier  the  word  death,  when  spoken  of  the  soul,  means  ahena- 
tion  or  separation  from  God  ;  and  when  that  separation  is  final  it 
is  eternal  death.  This  is  so  plain  that  it  never  has  been  doubted, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  the  doctrine  of  the  amiihila- 
tion  of  the  wicked. 

2.  The  same  remark  apphes  to  the  use  of  the  words  destroy 
and  perish.  To  destroy  is  to  ruin.  The  nature  of  that  ruin 
depends  on  the  nature  of  the  subject  of  which  it  is  predicated.  A 
thing  is  ruined  when  it  is  rendered  unfit  for  use  ;  when  it  is  in 
such  a  state  that  it  can  no  longer  answer  the  end  for  which  it  was 
designed.  A  ship  at  sea,  dismasted,  rudderless,  with  its  sides 
battered  in,  is  ruined,  but  not  annihilated.  It  is  a  ship  still.  A 
man  destroys  hmiself  when  he  ruins  his  health,  squanders  his 
property,  debases  his  character,  and  renders  himself  unfit  to  act 
his  part  in  life.  A  soul  is  utterly  and  forever  destroyed  when  it 
is  reprobated,  alienated  from  God,  rendered  a  fit  companion  only 
for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  This  is  a  destruction  a  thousandfold 
more  fearful  than  annihilation.  The  earnestness  with  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  unending  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  denounced 
by  those  who  reject  it,  should  convince  them  that  its  truth  is  the 
only  rational  solution  of  the  fact  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did 
not  condemn  it. 

3.  But  Christ  and  the  Apostles  not  only  failed  to  correct  the 
teachings  of  the  Jews  of  their  day  concerning  the  everlasting 
punishment  of  the  wicked,  but  they  themselves  also  taught  that 


§6.]  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  875 

doctrine  in  the  most  explicit  and  solemn  manner.  It  is  a&,serted 
affirmatively  that  future  punishment  is  everlasting ;  in  the  nega- 
tive form  that  it  can  never  end  ;  that  there  is  in  the  future  world 
an  impassable  gulf  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked ;  and 
that  there  are  sins  which  can  never  be  forgiven  either  in  this  life 
or  in  the  life  to  come.  Thus  if  words  can  teach  this  doctrine  it 
is  taught  in  the  Bible  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  In  the  Old 
Testament,  the  prophet  says  (Is.  xxxiii.  14)  :  "  The  sinners  in 
Zion  are  afraid ;  fearfulness  hath  surprised  the  hypocrites  ;  who 
among  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devouring  fire  ?  who  among  us 
shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings."  In  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24  it  is 
said  of  those  who  should  be  excluded  from  the  new  heavens  and 
the  new  earth  which  the  prophet  had  predicted,  "  that  their 
worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched." 
"  Hell,"  however,  "  is  of  both  worlds,  so  that  in  the  same  essential 
sense,  althoiigh  in  different  degrees,  it  may  be  said  both  of  him 
who  is  still  living  but  accursed,  and  of  him  who  perished  cen- 
turies ago,  that  his  worm  dieth  not  and  his  fire  is  not  quenched."  ^ 
The  prophet  Daniel  (xii.  2)  says  of  the  wicked,  that  they  "  shall 
awake  ....  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  In  Luke 
iii.  17  it  is  said  that  Christ  shall  "  gather  the  wheat  into  his  gar- 
ner; but  the  chaff  He  will  burn  with  fire  unquenchable."  In 
Mark  ix.  42-48  our  Lord  says  that  it  is  better  "  to  enter  into 
life  maimed,  than,  having  two  hands,  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire 
that  never  shall  be  quenched  :  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and 
the  fire  is  not  quenched."  These  awful  words  fell  three  times, 
in  one  discourse,  from  the  lips  of  mercy,  to  giye  them  the  greater 
effect.  Christ  wept  over  Jerusalem.  Why  did  He  not  avert  its 
doom  ?  Simply  because  it  would  not  have  been  right.  So  He 
may  weep  over  the  doom  of  the  impenitent  wicked ;  and  yet 
leave  them  to  their  fate.  It  is  no  more  possible  that  the  cup 
should  pass  from  their  lips  than  that  it  should  have  been  taken 
from  the  trembling  hand  of  the  Son  of  God  himself.  The  latter 
spectacle  was  far  more  appalling  in  the  eyes  of  angels  than  the 
lake  of  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 

The  Judge  on  the  last  day,  we  are  told,  will  say  to  those  on 
the  left  hand :  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire."  "  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment : 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  The  same  word  is  used  in 
both  clauses  ;  the  wicked  are  to  go    ei?  KoXao-w  alwvLov  ;  and  the 

1  The  Prophecies  oj  Isaiah  Translated  and  Explained.     By  Joseph  Addison  Alexander. 
New  York,  1865,  vol.  ii.  p.  482. 


87C  PART  IV.     Ch.   IV.— the    second   ADVENT. 

righteous  «is  Cw^i/  aiwviov ;  it  must  have  the  same  sense  in  both. 
(Matt.  XXV.  41,  46.)  In  John  iii.  36  it  is  said :  "  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life  :  and  he  that  believeth 
not  tlie  Son,  shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him."  Paul  teaches  us  in  2  Thessalonians  i.  9  that  when  Christ 
comes  the  wicked  "  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power." 
Jude  (verse  6)  says  that  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first 
estate  are  "  reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under  darkness,  unto 
the  judgment  of  the  great  clay.  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
....  are  set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire,"  Of  apostates,  he  says  (verses  12,  13)  there  is 
reserved  for  them  "  the  blackness  of  darkness  forever."  In  Rev- 
elation xiv.  9-11,  those  who  worship  the  beast  and  his  image  or 
receive  his  mark,  shall  "  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in 
the  presence  of  the  holy  angels,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Lamb  : 
and  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever : 
and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night."  Nearly  the  same  words 
ai'e  repeated  in  chapters  xix.  1-3,  20 ;  xx.  10. 

It  is  objected  to  the  argument  founded  on  these  passages 
that  the  word  "  everlasting "  is  sometimes  used  in  Scripture 
of  periods  of  limited  duration.  In  reference  to  this  objection  it 
may  be  remarked,  (1.)  That  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  ren- 
dered in  our  version  eternal,  or  everlasting,  mean  duration  whose 
termination  is  unknown.  When  used  in  reference  to  perishable 
things,  as  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  "  the  everlasting  hills,"  they 
simply  indicate  indefinite  existence,  that  is,  existence  to  which 
there  is  no  known  or  assignable  limit.  But  when  used  in  refer- 
ence to  that  which  is  either  in  its  own  nature  imperishable,  or  of 
which  the  unending  existence  is  revealed,  as  the  human  soul,  or 
in  reference  to  that  which  we  have  no  authority  from  other 
sources  to  assign  a  limit  to,  as  the  future  blessedness  of  the  saints, 
then  the  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense.  If,  because 
we  sometimes  say  we  give  a  man  a  thing  forever,  without  intend- 
ing that  he  is  to  possess  it  to  all  eternity,  it  were  argued  that  the 
word  forever  expresses  limited  duration,  every  one  would  see  that 
the  inference  was  unfounded.  If  the  Bible  says  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  lost  are  to  be  everlasting,  they  are  to  endure  forever, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  either  that  the  soul  is  not  immortal  or 
that  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  teach  that  those  sufferings  are  to 
come  to  an  end.  No  one  argues  that  the  blessedness  of  the 
righteous  vnW  cease  after  a  term  of  years,  because  the  word  ever- 


§6.]  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  877 

lasting  is  sometimes  used  of  things  which  do  not  continue  forever 
Our  Lord  teaches  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  everlasting, 
in  the  same  sense  that  the  blessedness  of  the  saints  is  everlasting. 
(2.)  It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  admitting  the  word  "  everlast- 
ing" to  be  ever  so  ambiguous,  the  Bible  says  that  the  worm 
never  dies,  and  the  fire  is  never  quenched.  We  have  therefore 
the  direct  assertion  of  the  word  of  God  that  the  sufferings  of  the 
lost  are  unending.  All  the  modes  of  expression  used  to  set  forth 
the  perpetuity  of  the  salvation  of  believers  and  the  everlasting 
duration  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  are  employed  to  teach  the 
perpetuity  of  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked.  If  that  doc- 
trine, therefore,  be  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  it  could  be  taught  in  human  language. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  on  this  subject  is  drawn  from  passages 
in  which  the  doctrine  is  implied,  although  not  directly  asserted. 
This  includes  those  passages  which  teach  that  there  is  no  repent- 
ance, no  forgiveness,  no  change  of  state  in  the  future  world. 
This  is  done,  for  example,  in  our  Lord's  parable  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus,  in  which  He  teaches  that  there  is  no  possibility  of 
passing  from  hell  to  heaven.  So,  also,  we  are  taught  that  those 
who  die  in  sin  remain  sinful  forever.  And  our  Lord  says,  it 
would  be  better  for  a  man  had  he  never  been  born,  than  that  he 
should  incur  the  guilt  of  offending  any  of  the  little  ones  who 
believe  on  Him.  This,  at  least,  is  conclusive  against  the  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation ;  for  if,  after  any  period  of  suffering,  an 
eternity  of  happiness  awaits  a  man,  his  being  born  is  an  unspeak- 
able blessing. 

Rationalists  say  that  it  is  very  impolitic  for  Christians  to  rep- 
resent the  everlasting  punishment  of  the  wicked  as  a  doctrine  of 
the  Bible.  This  is  undoubtedly  true.  And  so  Paul  felt  that  it 
was  very  impolitic  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross.  He 
knew  that  doctrine  to  be  a  stumbling-block  to  the  Jew  and  fool- 
ishness to  the  Greek.  He  knew  that  had  he  preached  the  com- 
mon sense  doctrine  of  salvation  by  works,  the  offence  of  the  cross 
would  have  ceased.  Nevertheless,  he  knew  that  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  crucified  was  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation.  He  knew  that  it  was  not  his  business  to  make  a 
Gospel,  but  to  declare  that  Gospel  which  had  been  taught  Him, 
by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  would  be  well  if  all'  who 
call  themselves  Christians,  should  learn  that  it  is  not  their  busi- 
ness to  believe  and  teach  what  they  may  think  true  or  right,  but 
what  God  in  his  Holy  Word  has  seen  fit  to  reveal. 


8T8  PART  IV.    Ch.  IV.  — THE   SECOND   ADVENT. 

Objections. 
It  is  urged  that  it  cannot  be  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God 
to  inflict  a  really  infinite  penalty  on  such  a  creature  as  man.     It 
is  very  obvious  to  remark  on  this  subject :  — 

1.  That  we  are  incompetent  judges  of  the  penalty  which  sin 
deserves.  We  have  no  adequate  apprehension  of  its  inherent  guilt, 
of  the  dignity  of  the  person  against  whom  it  is  committed,  or  of 
the  extent  of  the  evil  which  it  is  suited  to  produce.  The  proper 
end  of  punishment  is  retribution  and  prevention.  What  is  neces- 
sary for  that  end,  God  only  knows  ;  and,  therefore,  the  penalty 
which  He  imposes  on  sin  is  the  only  just  measure  of  its  ill  desert. 

2.  If  it  be  inconsistent  with  the  justice  of  God  that  men  should 
perish  for  their  sins,  then  redemption  is  not  a  matter  of  grace,  or 
undeserved  mercy.  Deliverance  from  an  unjust  penalty,  is  a 
matter  of  justice.  Nothing,  however,  is  plainer  from  the  teach- 
ing of  Scripture,  and  nothing  is  more  universally  and  joyfully 
acknowledged  by  all  Christians,  than  that  the  whole  plan  of  re- 
demption, the  mission,  the  incarnation,  and  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  the  Son  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  sinners,  is  a  wonder- 
ful exhibition  of  the  love  of  God  which  passes  knowledge.  But 
if  justice  demand  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  then  salvation  is 
a  matter  of  justice ;  and  then  all  the  songs  of  gratitude  and 
praise  from  the  redeemed,  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  must 
at  once  cease. 

3.  It  is  often  said  that  sin  is  an  infinite  evil  because  committed 
against  a  person  of  infinite  dignity,  and  therefore  deserves  an 
infinite  penalty.  To  this  it  is  answered,  that  as  sin  is  an  act  or 
state  of  a  finite  subject,  it  must  of  necessity  be  itself  finite.  Men 
are  apt  to  involve  themselves  in  contradictions  when  they  attempt 
to  reason  about  the  infinite.  The  word  is  so  vague  and  so  com- 
prehensive, and  our  ideas  of  what  it  is  intended  to  express  are  so 
inadequate,  that  we  are  soon  lost  when  we  seek  to  make  it  a  guide 
in  forming  our  judgments.  If  the  evil  of  a  single  sin,  and  that 
the  smallest,  lasts  forever,  it  is  in  one  sense  an  infinite  evil,  al- 
though in  comparison  with  other  sins,  or  with  the  whole  mass  of 
sin  ever  committed,  it  may  appear  a  mere  trifle.  The  guilt  of 
sin  is  infinite  in  the  sense  that  we  can  set  no  limits  to  its  turpi- 
tude or  to  the  evil  which  it  is  adapted  to  produce. 

4.  Relief  on  this  subject  is  sought  from  the  consideration  that 
as  the  lost  continue  to  sin  forever  they  may  justly  be  punished 
forever.     To  this,  however,  it  is  answered  that  the  retributions  of 


§6.]  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  879 

eternity  are  threatened  for  the  sins  done  in  the  body.  This  is 
true ;  nevertheless',  it  is  also  true,  first,  that  sin  in  its  nature  is 
alienation  and  separation  from  God  ;  and  as  God  is  the  source  of 
all  holiness  and  happiness,  separation  from  Him  is  of  necessity 
the  forfeiture  of  all  good  ;  secondly,  that  this  separation  is  from 
its  nature  final  and  consequently  involves  endless  sinfulness  and 
misery.  It  is  thus  final,  unless  on  the  assumption  of  the  unde- 
served and  supernatural  intervention  of  God  as  in  the  case  of  the 
redemption  of  man ;  and  thirdly,  it  is  also  true  that  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  "  the  carnal  mind  is  death."  Degradation  and 
misery  are  inseparably  connected  with  sin.  As  long  as  rational 
creatures  are  sinful,  they  must  be  degraded  and  miserable.  There 
is  no  law  of  nature  more  immutable  than  this.  If  men  do  not 
expect  God  to  reverse  the  laws  of  nature  to  secure  their  exemp- 
tion from  wanton  transgression  of  those  laws,  why  should  they 
expect  Him  to  reverse  the  still  more  immutable  laws  of  our  moral 
constitution  and  of  his  moral  government  ?  The  doom  of  the 
fallen  angels  teaches  us  that  one  act  of  rebellion  against  God  is 
fatal,  whether  we  say  that  all  they  have  suffered  since,  and  all 
they  are  to  suffer  forever,  is  the  penalty  of  that  one  act,  or  the 
mevitable  consequence  of  the  condition  into  which  that  one  act 
brought  them,  makes  no  difference. 

The   Groodness  of  Grod. 

A  still  more  formidable  objection  is  drawn  from  the  goodness 
of  God.  It  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  his  benevolence  that 
He  should  allow  any  of  his  creatures  to  be  forever  miserable. 
The  answer  to  this  is :  — 

1.  That  it  is  just  as  impossible  that  God  should  do  a  little 
wrong  as  a  great  one.  If  He  has  permitted  such  a  vast  amount 
of  sin  and  misery  to  exist  in  the  world,  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to 
the  present  time,  how  can  we  say  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  his 
goodness,  to  allow  them  to  continue  to  exist  ?  How  do  we  know- 
that  the  reasons,  so  to  speak,  which  constrained  God  to  allow  his 
children  to  be  sinful  and  miserable  for  thousands  of  years,  may 
not  constrain  Him  to  permit  some  of  them  to  remain  miserable 
forever?  If  the  highest  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  the  uni- 
verse have  been  promoted  by  the  past  sinfulness  and  misery  of 
men,  why  may  not  those  objects  be  promoted  by  what  is  declared 
to  be  future  ? 

2.  We  have  reason  to  believe,  as  urged  in  the  first  volume  of 
this  work,  and  as  often  urged  elsewhere,  that  the  number  of  the 


B80        PART  IV.   Ch.  IV.  — the  second  advent. 

ilnally  lost  in  comparison  with  the  whole  number  of  the  saved 
will  be  very  inconsiderable.  Our  blessed  Lord,  when  surrounded 
by  the  innumerable  company  of  the  redeemed,  will  be  hailed  as 
the  "  Salvator  Hominum,"  the  Saviour  of  Men,  as  the  Lamb 
.hat  bore  the  sins  of  the  world. 

3.  It  should  constrain  us  to  humility,  and  to  silence  on  this 
subject,  that  the  most  solemn  and  explicit  declarations  of  the 
everlasting  misery  of  the  wicked  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  fell 
from  the  lips  of  Him,  who,  though  equal  with  God,  was  found  in 
fashion  as  a  man,  and  humbled  Himself  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross,  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation. 


Date 

Due 

w 

Jel!»^ 

mtfas 

M»»  -^ 

_h  ii 

&  &  S^«i 

F  4-«.'^ 

tr^^^AMjM^^y^^^i 

V. 

MAM   *        "* 

? 

^'^^^ 

1 

i 

! 

^ 

c  .^ 


